User talk:Marilyndowning99/sandbox

peer review- Samantha
Lead Section - Introductory Sentence: clearly states that the article will be about Angie Thomas - Summary: I think you can put the Life section as a second paragraph in the lead section and start a new paragraph under your first two sentences about her. It might make it flow better into the body of the article if all her background info is already covered briefly in the lead section. - Context: Good context is given in the lead section about The Hate U Give, it is included in both the summary and is present in the body later on.

Article - Organization well organized and easy to follow. Might want to move the Critical Reception section of The Hate U Give paragraph up because that paragraph gives more detail about what made her want to write it and what her purpose for writing it was. - Content Good content but I would like to read more about the Black Lives Matter movement and why she is interested in it. I think adding more info about what her book is about would be beneficial because right now I think it is kind of a broad description and I am not sure what the actual content of the book covers. It would be helpful to read about some of the titles of the chapters in the book and brief summary to better understand why it got such good reviews. The sentence that says, “those who have been silenced” is kind of a generalization of a group. In the critical reception section it could be better understood if there were details about what types of reviews such as good and bad rather than just the one’s who support her. It might be interesting to read why someone would disagree with her viewpoint. I’m not sure if it was just me but I was a little confused on the Tupac part of the article and why that is relevant. I like the first quote you included from his song lyrics and thought that was a good connection to her inspiration for her book, but I was confused about the tattoo part.

References - Citations Each statement is associated with a supporting reference - Sources I recognized that source 5 is used a lot throughout the article but I do  not feel that it creates an unbalanced article. I still get a feeling that there is more than one point of view while reading the article. - Completeness all references are complete.

Lead Section

 * I think you do a good job with your introductory sentence. You briefly explained who Angie Thomas is and what she is known for.
 * I don't see an actual lead section with much detail, but I like the Life section that you included because it gives a background of her life and it works as a stand alone section.
 * You give a good summary overall and you made sure to go back and tie in further information about her book The Hate U Give.

Article

 * Overall you separated each section very well and you provided a good amount of information in each section that I think added nicely to her wiki page. It is well organized and is easy to navigate through. I liked the amount of background information on her life that you provided. One thing I would like to see is if she is involved in the Black Lives Matter movement and if so how is she involved. I liked how you included what the critics had to say about her book.

Lead Section
I like your addition to the lead section. Maybe it could be a bit longer still? I am not sure that would be possible though. It is very concise.

Article
It was a good call to break up the life and career sections. It is well written and chronological. I am not sure if saying "fanfic" will be useful for people who do not know what it is. You could type out "fan fiction" and hyperlink the wikipedia article if there is one. It was smart to add her upcoming book.