User talk:Mmeyer7/sandbox

Sarah's peer review
Sarahlaw1 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Sarahlaw1 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does a really great job synthesizing information from various sources. They are varied and come from reputable places. I was really impressed especially by number of various sources that they used because it really makes the article well rounded. This prevents the article from having a bias one way or another. It helps keep the article very neutral.
 * I think it might be worth while to read through the article again as a whole for clarity. There were a few phrases that were slightly hard to understand or a bit jolting to the reader. Also, the article drafts that you have here are not the same changes that you said you would make in the article's talk page. I would probably recommend either adding those sections in as well to what you currently have or going back to the article talk page to explain the changes that are currently set up to take place in your sandbox.
 * The most important thing to improve the article would be formatting I think. I don't know if the bulleted format of the article necessarily works or fits in with the formatting of the other Wikipedia pages, including that of "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." There are also two citation issues that should be changed. One of the sources is listed twice, a new number each time it is being used, instead of being cited with the same footnote number. There is also another citation spot in the second draft that does not have a source connected to it.
 * What I think I can take back to my own article as well is checking for flow of the paragraphs and making sure they make sense. Your group does a really great job synthesizing information, but the paragraphs read slightly choppy at times, which I think is something that my group can look into as well.

Madison's Peer Review
Mmagiera11 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments for the Style and Publication Section: The draft gives an interesting insight into the publication of the book and why the author used his style of writing. Most sentences are clear and in a neutral, Encyclopedic tone. I was impressed with how well the article presents a neutral tone. I am questioning the use of bullet points under the section heading. I believe typical Wikipedia format does not use bullet points under section headings, so it may be necessary to move the writing into paragraph format under the section heading. The quality of writing is strong, but there are some grammatical errors. It would be helpful to proofread the writing for comma errors, as I think there is some missing commas. Some of the sentences are very long, especially the last sentence under the first bullet point. This sentence was a little confusing because of the length. I would suggest shortening longer sentences by eliminating unnecessary words where you see fit. This would make the prose more clear to readers. The draft includes the sentence, "Many scholars and critics have analyzed and reviewed the character of Seymour Glass by connecting his characterization to the experiences of Salinger himself". Using the phrase "many scholars and critics have analyzed... by connecting..." without a reference to any scholarly article makes this claim seem made up. If this draft wants to make this claim, there should be multiple references at the end of this sentence to journal articles which analyze the characters of the book in this way. Additionally, I think more citations could be added throughout the article. The information in 4th and 5th bullet points could use citations to support the claims made. Ideally, for any sentence that makes a claim that is not common knowledge, there should be a citation. The 2nd bullet point under Style and Publication talks about reception of the novel and may be better under the Reception and Criticism section below it.

Comments for the Reception and Criticism Section: Again, this section gives very interesting and insightful information in a neutral way. Again, it may be helpful to proofread sentences. The article as a whole references multiple scholarly journals, but certain sentences make claims without a citation at the end. There should be citations after every sentence that makes a claim.

Nice job on the first draft! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmagiera11 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Mmagiera11 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)