User talk:Michaelshufro/sandbox

Jill's Peer Review:

I love this topic! I think it explores an important corner in literary criticism, or just the reading of literature in general. I'm excited to see the finished product. My article is not even as fleshed out as yours is, so I will use yours as inspiration to keep writing and organizing! :)

Lead Ask yourself: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I definitely understand the importance of the topic, but the article lacks a proper "way in". I like the way you introduce the "wise fool" - but maybe start with something that contextualizes the term a bit more, or put it in conversations with a primary text.

Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I think your article has a sensible organization so far but it does lack headings/subtopics. The material is already organized well, it just needs those sub-headings. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Everything seems perfectly on topic, but it just might need more fleshing out.

Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Perhaps the idea of the "wise fool" just needs more contextualization... but it seems like you make some value statements like "at times they are regarded with respect and reverence..." But I can't tell if this is an argument? I don't think it is, and you provided a valid source at the end to back it up. I would just say be careful so as to not sounds like an argument. But I really enjoy your analysis! Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I can see that you analyzed the idea of the wise fool which is awesome! I don't see an argument perse, but I would try and be a bit more passive about the conclusions you draw and continue to back up your analysis in a distanced/neutral way. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Definitely not, looks good on that front. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Nope, you seem to directly reference critical sources so far, and thereby avoid being vague. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. I think you have a balanced point of view.

Sourcing

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The sourcing looks academic and reliable. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Looks balanced so far, it just needs fleshing out. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

model page
Picaresque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Jillyann's Peer Review #2
Michael,

Such a great idea to further develop The Wise Fool in Literature, especially by adding examples found in Antiquity, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern contexts. You are contributing so much information. I have learned so much from reading your Antiquity section, and you embody the wiki genre of providing the reader with a rich body of knowledge, but in broken-down, manageable bits. The Antiquity section is well-written and well structured. With that as an indication of how your other sections will be presented, The Wise Fool article will be well developed, especially since it was missing quite a bit of citation.

Keep up the good work. From the sections you've contributed, everything looks on-topic and neutral. You probably will already do so, but once you finish, don't forget to add any new concepts you have added (i.e. Renaissance, Modern, Sancho Ponza, Jesus) to the Lead section if it isn't already in there.

And just curious... How do the articles "The Dialogic Imagination," and "Living without Philosophy: On Narrative, Rhetoric, and Morality" relate to The Wise Fool? I know they may just be potential sources at the moment. I'll just wait to see the final article. Nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmugerio (talk • contribs) 08:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

feedback
Looks good. I think you're ready to go live. . . review the guidelines in Week 10 of our Dashboard to start the process. Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)