User talk:Lgiordano18/sandbox

Chau's peer review of Bluest Eye edits

Genre Section: The word "harsh" in the second sentence might be a little biased. Otherwise, I agree that adding more information about Toni Morrison's accolades as an author is an important detail to include in the header.

Reception Section: I like the addition of the novel's initial reception at the beginning of the section, along with how it became more popular in universities. The sentence about "feminist critique" could include more information to be specific about where the critique is coming from and what those critics had to say about the Bluest Eye.

Controversy Section: I'm also planning to trim the controversy section. I agree that it's too long and over-represents the negative feedback received by the novel. It's also too specific. It's not necessary to go into such detail when discussing the controversies faced by the novel in individual cities. The section tends to be really repetitive.

New Structure: I think the proposed rearrangement of the article will help improve clarity and flow. The justification for changing the order of the sections is solid.

Chaunguyenle (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

- Matt's Comments: Lead/Header: Good decision-making in what to include and what not to, the organization makes sense. Nitpick, but "tells the life" sounds awkward. I think that the balance is great, since it briefly addresses that the book is challenged and why without too much detail.

Reception: I like the intro sentence that she was praised, before jumping into specific examples. However, Wikipedia may argue that there needs to be a citation on that line, because without it, it sounds like a generalization (ie who was praising her?). The paragraphs flow much better now with you edits. One suggestion is to reword the very first sentence to get rid of the however clause, address how university reading lists led to more sales or more awards.

Genre: I would look at the genre section for some of the author's other works, if available, to see how other editors have handled it (Caged Bird is a good example too). Just try and avoid hyperbole in this section, as in don't say "famous" when you are actually editing.

Analysis: I agree with the new ordering

Overall: Great job, the tone is formal and there are no weasel words. Best contribution is that everything flows more, maybe one thing to work on is adding more citations, even if they are to the same source, on each line

Mcoyne1616 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)