User talk:Jlongarzo/sandbox

Hey Jack it's me Palmer, here to review your first draft. I think your draft is mostly solid. There are a few grammatical mistakes so make sure to proofread your contributions again before you actually put it onto the official page. I'm operating under the assumption that everything in your sandbox is your own original content. You are adding a lot of really good information, I think your content is solid and deserving of being added to the page. At the same time, you do a pretty good job including it. My only note on that end would be potentially having fewer quotes and more paraphrasing. There are some sections with several quotes that I believe could be broken up and made easier to digest by having a bit of summary instead of quotations. I also noticed that some of your statements did not have citations. I'm not particularly worried about this because I believe you have the sources but just have not put them all in yet. Still, make sure to do that. Your writing is mostly concise and clear, but there are points where it could be improved. Be careful of phrases like, "brilliant," "by many," and "by others." I see the idea of creating a sort of introduction that you then elaborate on, but I think that may be unnecessary. It might be better to just begin by talking about one side of the argument, then, once you've finished discussing that point of view, switch to the opposing side. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think this change would help the page follow Wikipedia's guidelines more closely. The content of the thematic debate section is good, but the first little paragraph is too vague and opinionated for Wikipedia, I think. The same can be said for the first section where you discuss controversy. Still, I want to stress the validity of the content so long as some of the excess introduction and whatnot is trimmed. I think that entences like those, while good in typical writing, are too abstract for Wikipedia.

Poph55 (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack! Overall, great work on your article so far. I really liked reading it and learning more about the Wolf of Wall Street. One thing I think you could edit a bit in the article is your phrasing, specifically moving away from directly quoting review sources and instead paraphrasing more—specifically in the PETA section. In addition, there are a few grammatical things to take care of, including hyphenating “five-time,” and adding some commas to make sentences flow a bit more. I really like that you have a short paragraph in which you address the two major schools of thought in the “Thematic Debate” section, but I think that you could cut down that first paragraph a bit. Also, the repeated use of the word “controversial/controversy” in the last sentence of that paragraph could be changed. In addition, I would again say that some more paraphrasing in these paragraphs could help to improve readability and make the article better align with Wikipedia’s criteria for a great article. Also, great use of signal phrases in introducing claims! Overall, solid work and I look forward to reading the final product! - Grace Gkhaner (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)gkhaner

Jack's Comments
Both respondents gave me some great feedback to work with. Their comments are largely about minor grammar errors and my excessive use of quotations. I will certainly make sure to take a look at both of these when I go into restructuring and rewording the text. Palmer makes an interesting point about my more abstract introductory sections that I really like and I will be sure to delete any unnecessary or potentially opinionated text in this area. Grace also noted that my "Thematic Debate" section is a bit long and could be more concise so I will take a look at how I can restructure this area and make it stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlongarzo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)