User talk:Rubypow

Welcome!
Hello, Rubypow, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Camille Peer Review
Ruby, this is so thorough!! Great job on researching all of this.

Lead: Awesome! So clear, direct, and full. You fully broke down what you later covered in the article which was super helpful and provided great framework.

Article: I really appreciate that you included a section on the author - it established the creditability of the book. The section on Plot Summaries was so detailed. Maybe think about adding a legacy section - either the impact that the book has had/any reviews of the book or the impact the author has had.

References: Not quite sure what the reference section is supposed to look like actually but it seems very clean. :)

Overall, great job! This is so detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgracethompson (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Kataryna Peer Review
Ruby this was so well done! I realized mine wasn't perfect but this reading yours made me realize how much work I really have to do.

Lead: The lead section was a great introduction to Audre Lorde as a person, what the book is about, and why she wrote it all while not giving away too much which I don’t understand how you did. What you talked about in the lead all appeared in the body which was great. Article: There really isn’t too much to say about this except how thorough it was and I can tell how much work you put into this article. I believe you stayed neutral the whole time which was a requirement obviously so great job! I think you covered everything that could be asked of you.

References: Your see also and references part looked like a real Wikipedia page, so that’s incredible. Please help and teach me!

Overall: It was really really good, you absolutely could turn it in right now. The only thing I would consider adding is possibly how many copies were sold, if anyone had any lasting impressions because of it or if it inspired anything/anyone. But so great though!

Peer Review
I thought that you have a tremendous amount of material that is well researched and versed. The leading and summary paragraphs introduced the topic in an easy to understand format. They properly introduced the subject and relayed the impact of importance the journal had (which I think carried through the article).

I think you stayed neutral and wrote in an observational perspective which was good. I think there could be more citations/sources in the main part of the content sections. I say this however I wrote my article with every other sentence attempting to contain a source. Overall I believe you have enough to support what you said but being an encyclopedia more sources could potentially help.

Overall I liked your writing and thought it was very neutral and informative. The references looked correct and I was very impressed with the amount of material you have ready to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli-Rangel (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)