User talk:Jrr108/sandbox

Jeff,

The censorship case in Howell, MI is presented in an objective way with statements from those in favor of and against the challenge. Varied sources are used in this section and the case is clearly explained with appropriate details. My only suggestion would be to add the specific name of the parent who opposed the book if that can be found. Neutral phrasing is used throughout the article and the literary interpretations are clearly attributed to credible sources since signal phrases are used. If the area of expertise of the literary critics are known maybe slightly more specific information can be added about the authors. I also found the literary interpretation about "media and culture" interesting since it relates to my research about the perpetuation and effects of white beauty standards. Also some additional citations can be added after quotes so it's clear which source the quote is coming from. Overall, your additions to the article are very impressive! Jm3038 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oWBHUXN1HAdfUw-f1dw6WXYTdwhseHOm2I0_Hk_b94A/edit#heading=h.nbgzib490ttp Jm3038 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor edits: https://docs.google.com/a/georgetown.edu/document/d/14vrK6sKBcQszSCGyPevXU0IJ4N5WVlCrYj7pn3zhv5c/edit?usp=sharing

Your controversy case is well researched and written, especially with the use of quotes throughout the summary of the situation. The themes section is also well done and I think especially a necessary add for the wiki page; in the section on "Breaks and Separation", I would consider using the word "Breakage" instead of just "Break". It helps the article flow better, and the noun "break" doesn't really lend itself in the theme summary you gave. Otherwise, great job!Jmg370 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)