User talk:Scbloom/sandbox

Samantha's Peer Review
''Dear Samantha,

I think your plan of attack for the article seems sufficient and you are heading in the right direction.Below I have made a few notes that consist of reminders, general thoughts and encouragement.''

Overall

After briefly looking at the Wikipedia article on Queer Ecology I think that the more structure and clarity that you bring to the subject the better. The article in its current state is very unorganized and seems like a shotgun blast of information that is all over the place. I think that you can provide a lot of focus by creating subsections that address the pertinent information you find during research. Also try your hardest to keep advanced language to a minimum and maybe as a compromise link a lot of more advanced terms to other wikipedia articles.

I appreciate you taking the time to craft the most comprehensive definition you can of Queer Ecology. The original clearly wasn't cutting it and I think this definition will be really important in establishing clarity and direction in the article. Make sure that the final definition that you and your group members come to is clear and understandable within the small amount of context that you give in the introduction.

Lastly, as you continue to add information be succinct! Im sure you will have no trouble, but just a friendly reminder.

Sources

I am noting that you have 5-6 sources to cover the breadth of Queer Ecology. After you finish drafting I would continue to do more extensive research if you have time. This is necessary to ensure impartiality and present the most accurate information possible across all sources of information. While I don't question the validity of your sources, I am curious as to why 3 of the sources come from the "Gale Virtual Reference Library". Is this a popular publication for Queer Ecology/ are there any other good publications out there that would supply you more great sources? I am not sure if there are or not but just a thought.

I also have questions about how your sources individually relate to the three distinct fields of study of queer anthology. It may be effective to break your article down in this way, as it may make understanding the subject more straightforward for the reader. If you could find 2-3 sources for each field of study that would probably be sufficient.

Key Terms

I noticed that in the original text the author(s) linked a lot of lesser known terms back to other Wikipedia articles. While I understand that you probably just haven't gotten to this step yet, I would make sure to do similar linking for terms that may puzzle the average reader.