User talk:SAutumnUCM/sandbox

James Cermak -- Nick Cave Peer Review
The first thing I noticed is that all of your information in the sandbox is organized by who researched it, not by topic. Because of this, I saw that a lot of your research said the same things. Firstly, I would go in and organize the research you have into different topics (personal life, themes in his work, methodology, etc.). Then, compare what you have to what's in the article, get rid of redundant research, and see what's left. This will help immensely when transferring your research to the article itself.

There isn't much information about general reception or criticism of Cave's works in the article nor in the research you all have. I think including some of that would benefit the article.

I do like that you've found other works and exhibits that Cave displays his soundsuits in. You could look more into those; has he done anything notable with them outside the US? Has he incorporated different dancing techniques in different venues?

Overall, you guys have a pretty good start with your research. If you take these considerations to mind, I think you'll vastly improve this article.

(Apologies if I sound a bit blunt here)

Jrc05680 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Gavyn- Nick Cave Peer Review
I think your group has some solid information over the sound suits. The only thing I can think of that needs improvement on is catagorizing the information you have and that I haven't seen (so far) is more current information (for example- I see he is currently director of the graduate fashion program at School of the Art Institute of Chicago, so what else has he been doing?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavTink (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Aurora DuranNick Cave Peer Critique
To start off, your lead section should kind of set up the body of your article. You can put placeholder titles for sections of the article that remain unchanged, so we know to go back to the original article to fill in the blanks. Perhaps you guys might consider using the skeleton of the original article and then add and omit as needed from there.

For example:

It looks like the original article has some information that seems out of place. The information under the first heading in the original skeleton, labeled “Early life and education” seems conflicted. The timeline kind of jumps around a bit and concludes with the year 2007 when the artist was 48. Not what I would call early life. This section could be broken into sub-sections such as “Early life” and “Education,” respectively. There's also a 19-year time gap from 1988 (age 29) to 2007 (age 48). Maybe you could work in some of the information under the “Mixed-media” heading to fill in some gaps.

The next thing I felt could use some work is how your information “flows”. You guys have done the research, that much is abundantly clear, but there are lots of redundancies. Like James, I believe you should compare your notes to consolidate information and eliminating redundancies and then see how it fits with the original article—both factually and grammatically—making adjustments as needed.

Finally, delegation and communication would really help to shape up your work. For example:

→Rick will research the subject’s artistic process →Morty will add photos were best suited →Mr.Meeseeks will add citations were needed using the group’s consolidated notes for reference.

To conclude, I think you guys are off to a good start. A few changes here and there should round out your article nicely. My group is struggling with some of the same things, so reviewing your article has helped me see the discrepancies in our own article. Keep up the hard work.

Olashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olashes (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)