User talk:Lauren cox21/sandbox

Julia's peer review of draft one of Wikipedia edits: Does the writer employ concise, plain language? Are any sentences awkward or lengthy? Are there any weasel words? What revisions or proofreading to individual sentences would you recommend? - Sentence in lead-in section is a little confusing, maybe just mention the books, the connection to the continuation of the theme might not be needed Sentences are a little choppy - Name sources used instead of saying, “from another source” - Reference to the abate article is a little confusing, instead list out the full article name and author, mentioning their achievements and credentials Does each sentence convey a factual claim? Is each sentence cited? One citation per statement is the minimum expectation. No original research should be included. - The sentence on the lead-in section should probably be cited - I would add links to the books listed in lead-in section - Most sentences are cited, but there are a few sentences that don’t include a citation, so consider editing this to make sure no original research is   used Does each sentence attribute viewpoints to the people who hold them/the source? Does the writer need to add signal phrases? - There are a few instances where it is confusing as to where the source comes from or who the author of the source is - I would recommend going in and writing out the full name of all sources and where these viewpoints are coming from If writer has composed an entire paragraph, does it flow logically? Is anything unclear to you? - Main edits and new paragraphs relate to the reception section - Paragraphs flow pretty well, but some words make it a little choppy - Some transitions to sources are a little choppy Do you need more information or clarifications to understand the drafted materials? - No I feel like the material included helps clarify original issues with the article If the drafted materials is to be included in the lead-in section, review relevant Wikipedia guidelines. - The lead-in section edit might need to be revised as it includes themes of her different novels which look like it could be against Wikipedia’s guidelines - If this is taken out and only contains the names of her other books it should be in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines

Link to peer edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hFRNPPZLgfHEzlO9YKqKM4ABSMMPxcHs05OOiC5uk_4/edit Samanthadies (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)