User talk:Sarahbiss96/New sandbox

Peer Review Article Guidelines
- Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? - Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? - Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? - Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. - Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * * A lead section that is easy to understand
 * * A clear structure
 * * Balanced coverage
 * * Neutral content
 * * Reliable sources

Hi Sarah! Very cute that we are both doing Katherine Philips! So I will be evaluating your three chosen sections, Intro, Early Life, and Sexuality. Firstly would like to say - very cool adding the sexuality section! I think that is something I plan on adding as well since there is so much mystery around it!

The lead I would give it a 2/5. I think you should add more about why she is important, i.e. the fact that she was the first woman to put a play on an English stage, maybe more about the number of works (125) she has written and how she died in the middle of finishing Horace. She was also incredibly noted by Yeats and Dryden (important literary figures) as being influential to them! This is a great thing to add in your intro as it offers the reader a name they can recognize (Yeats) and will draw the reader in. I do like that you added her parent's names, I did not know her mother's name so great addition! Take out "being" and replace it with "and was".

The structure is good so far, obviously, this criteria point is not as relevant to my review as we are only reviewing a certain, small amount of the article. Great that you stayed in chronological order when recounting her Life and Career section. 5/5

Again, the "Balanced Coverage" is hard to evaluate as this is only the beginning! I would say you are right on track, 5/5.

Your tone and the information here is neutral and informative in. 5/5

Your sources seem well organized and reliable. I looked some of them up and they are great. (: 4/5

Questions to Consider 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? What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

——————————

I think that you are well on your way to improving this article, I am excited to be editing it with you. I think that your tone is used well here, and the Sexuality Section is an add-on with room for expansion. I would suggest adding more to the introduction section, like her accomplishments and the notable figures she inspired. It is important to note her child that died in childbirth named Henry in the Life & Career section, I also don't agree with combining the two as her Career will take up a lot of space and her Life, though short, was very intriguing, and deserves its own section. I think that Pompey and the political undertones and how she sneakily, successfully, put that show on a stage when it was so obviously not a neutral play was a monumental part of her career and should be noted in the Career section by itself. Why did she break Presbyterian traditions? Was it because of her husband? Don't forget to add personal details like that rather than assuming the reader will know what you are referring to. (: I always write as if I am writing for someone who is completely uneducated in the subject and literally needs everything spelt out for them! Detail, detail, detail! I believe the most important thing you could do for the article would be to explore her sexuality through her writing, try to find clues in some of her poetry that could suggest romantic feelings/encounters with her female friends in that literary group. After her death, a paper dedicated to Ann Barlow was found, and on it read: "recipt to cure a Love sick Person who cant obtain the Party desired."I retrieved that from the Katherine Philips Poetry Foundation page. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/katherine-philips This is a useful reference for learning about her personal life and has a good analysis of her work.

I can pretty much apply every note I gave you to my same article as we are both writing the same one! ——————— To conclude, I think you are off to a great start. I would suggest doing more outside research and reading some of her poetry in order to fully understand her and give insightful information. Great job at keeping the tone neutral and informative! Keep up the great work! - Seraphina Lewin SeraphinaLewin (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

This is looking great. I think it could also do with some information on the Society of Friends.

With regards to the discussion between you and about what belongs in a career section, I'm going to refer you to the current Wikipedia article on careers, which might help you both to think about the different ways in which the term "career" signifies before deciding how to move forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Career

EmerOToole (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving Work to Wikipedia Site
I have finished moving my work on the "Sexuality" section to the Katherine Philips Wikipedia page. I also amalgamated my information from the "Early Life" section with 's when moving it to the site. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do in order to complete this assignment. Thank you! Sarahbiss96 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Both the early life section and the section on sexuality look great and you are now done with this assignment. I hope you feel proud of your contributions. EmerOToole (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)