User talk:Oliviab219/sandbox

Isabelle's Evaluation:

I think you do a great job of writing in a neutral and clear tone. Each of your claims had a following citation, which made your additions reliable. Additionally, you always attribute viewpoints to the source where you found them, especially in the reception section. The reception section is certainly an important part of this article, and I think you added some much needed information. There was one name that was not capitalized (J Wallace Skelton), so going through your additions to proofread might be beneficial. Also, I know that some readers might not know what dead-naming is, so maybe hyperlinking that term to its Wikipedia article (if it has one) could be a helpful addition. I love the themes you have added, but I am also wondering if it might be helpful to add one more brief section maybe about identity? I think that is a really important part of the novel, though I know more additions might not be possible with limited time. Overall, I think you have really strong additions that are very well written.

Isabelleb10 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

William Schott’s Evaluation of Olivia’s additions: Olivia’s additions to the analysis and reception section are excellent in both content and sourcing. There was no analysis section prior to Olivia’s edits which will provide content for the much-needed section. In regards to the reception section, Olivia added great content to beef up both the quality and the depth of the section. Olivia not only adds quality sources but adds a much-needed introduction sentence to the publication section. Furthermore, Olivia adds both positive and critical reception of the novel which is very important in presenting a neutral tone for the page as a whole. In the reception section, the New York Times sentence has great content but seems to be a run on. I suggest adding some type of punctuation to split it into two sentences. The first section in the reception section I think if you switched “received positively” too “positively received” the sentence will flow better. My only other suggestion is to define “allyship” in the analysis section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Schott (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to Feedback
I got some really helpful feedback from my peer reviewers. It was helpful to hear their opinions as outside parties on which terms in my edits need to be defined (dead-naming and allyship) to make them more clear to readers. There are definitely also some edits I need to make on sentence structure which Will helpfully pointed out. Isabelle suggested some further additions to the analysis section that I will definitely consider but I might decide to just focus my time more on fixing up the edits I've already made to that section. Will later emailed me about creating a genre section together which I think is a great idea so I plan to add to that. I also plan to edit my additions some more for clarity and maybe add a few more sentences to the analysis section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviab219 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)