User talk:Renegadeknight3/sandbox2

Ultimately I thought that this was a fairly concise and to the point Wikipedia article about the story. By reading it I got a simple and easy to understand summary of the plot and general themes, as well as the details about the characters which are quite helpful. I might consider making a character specific tab/cast note and putting the character descriptions in there as opposed to the plot, and then perhaps summarizing the plot on its own. While it might not be normal practice for books, it might make for a more linear experience. One of the minor critiques I have is the neutral feeling of the article. I would say that the plot and descriptions of the characters are neutral in tone, however when you get to reception and analysis it seems somewhat negative. This is less due to your own writing and more due to the fact that most of the "reception" happened to be extremely critical of themes in the book. It might make it a bit more balanced if you found some positive reviews/endorsements of City Crimes in order to balance out the negative ones. - Dane Howard

ŤõÑÿ
1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

- I really appreciate the lengths you go to explain the background of the book and the plot summary, though I do think the summary could use a better structure to make it an easier read.

- Your sources must be DENSE to be able to list this much information with only four of them.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

- If the plot bounces between several characters, you may want to consider sub-headings for each character so they get their own segments and then summarizing the plot as a whole in another section.

- You jump right directly into the criticisms of the book in the "reception" section. You may want to begin with a general summary of the reception (positive, negative, mixed) and then get into the gritty bits.

- phrases like "blown to pieces after being tortured" could be rephrased more professionally in my opinion.

- Country of origin and a photo of the cover in the info box might be a good thing to add

- Citing the person who criticized aspects of the book in the reception section helps put a face behind the words instead of it being just generalized.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

- You remain neutral throughout most of the article, but there is the occasional term that i might consider judgemental or opinionated, such as describing Frank as hypocritical. Some points in the plot summary appear to be more analytical than purely stating the physical plot of the book, such as stating Sophia as being "upheld as a pillar of good." Be loose on descriptions like this unless it is explicitly stated by the narrator or a character in the book. As painful as it might be, try to be more plain in delivery when only talking about the plot.

- Unfortunately, the sources are inaccessible which makes fact checking difficult on my end. Not a criticism exactly, but know that I'm putting a lot of trust in you with the citation of your sources

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

- The amount of background you give helps give it a cultural context, which I think would be useful for my article, since Bambara takes part in both a post-punk revival and no-wave revival music scene.

- I like how it's coming along so far Tony. The information you have here is great and there's a whole lot of it. Just give it structure and shape it up over time and you should hit "good article" status soon enough. Good Luck!

NicHT495 (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)