User talk:Mcoyne1616/sandbox

Peer Revision: Tray Donohue
 * Tray's Peer Review**

Synopsis Section -Well made summary, avoids any biases, stays focused.

Response Section: -All edits make good use of formal language. -Avoids bias -Each of the three sections could perhaps benefit from explaining why the resolution was made the way it was to help give more insight on to the debate behind this book.

See Also: -Good use of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdonohue18 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Leta's Peer Review
Does the writer employ concise, plain language? - Yes.

Are any sentences awkward or lengthy? Are there any weasel words? - Perhaps, the sentence about the narrator and main character could read "The main character, who narrates the novel, is a young boy..." To make it more comprehensive.

What revisions or proofreading to individual sentences would you recommend? - Everything seems to make good sense.

Does each sentence convey a factual claim? - Yes, if there is indeed a source that can be added for each claim.

Is each sentence cited? One citation per statement is the minimum expectation. No original research should be included. - Add sources to the Response section to make sure each claim is valid and accurate and to prove each controversy is true

Does each sentence attribute viewpoints to the people who hold them/the source? Does the writer need to add signal phrases? - Yes

If writer has composed an entire paragraph, does it flow logically? Is anything unclear to you? - Everything flows well in good concise sentences and is easy to understand and interpret. - Yes -Perhaps change the name of the "Response" section to "Controversy" or "Reception" as wikipedia advises.

Do you need more information or clarifications to understand the drafted materials? - No, except to add citations after each sentence in the response section