User talk:Joh29/sandbox

Kain's Peer Review
• Lead Section – Is "long poem" the official term for a poem of this length? Is there more official terminology that could be used instead? – Does a good job of indicating why poem is historically important enough to demand its own article – Possible edit: "due to its typographic experiments" --> "due to its typographic elements" – Lead sentences could be condensed – Would suggest a very brief overview in this section about the poem's content (what it's about) before going more into detail via Summary section

• Clear Structure - Structure of draft as is seems to mimic that of similar articles and does not need rearrangement

• Balanced Coverage – "The first edition of the poem, published by the Woolfs in 1920": Seems to be slightly redundant of information stated in lead section – Neutral, balanced tone; no excessive usage of one source – Just out of curiosity, was there any correspondence between the Woolfs/Hogarth Press and the author that could be included in the "Publishing History" section?

• Neutral Content – Objective, third-person perspective – Perhaps better define which critics were mentioned in the "Reception" section? (Contemporary, etc.)

• Reliable Sources – Some statements could be linked to a source (esp. information about reprinting/changes made to later publications of the poem) – Expand upon sources currently listed – Consider inserting block quote from critic in the "Reception" section, if available?

Emma's Peer Review
This is a really good start to this article! The only suggestions I have are these:


 * I would put the year of the poem (either its publishing or writing) in the first sentence, to give people a good general idea of what they are reading about right from the start.
 * The quote that you have from the critic is really good, but I think it might be better to put it in the "reception" part of the article.
 * I'm not sure about this, but for the part about TS Eliot possibly reading the poem before writing The Waste Land, you might want to mention IN the sentence that this is a speculation held by some people, to avoid readers thinking you are drawing a conclusion. I think this may be a point where you need to "state bias".
 * I am a little confused about where to have "notes" and where to have "references". Do you need both? I have no idea.
 * Links work! I checked the sources that have links attached and the info lines up.
 * It looks like the sources are credible, and the websites you have used (Poetry Foundation, The British Library) seem to be neutral.

Egustav1 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)