User talk:Sifaat360/sandbox

Comments: Sarahdobie (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no title yet, because it is still in the sandbox
 * The title of the book should probably be italicized
 * NPOV is not quite reached, because there is the use of “peacock and weasel terms” – see the article linked in MyCourses. I would change the sentences: “According to Ted, printing productions are still very much part of our everyday life. In this book, Ted shows that even in modern, rapidly modern digitizing world books are not dead at all; he proves so by showing evidence and examples from trade journals, news media, films, advertisements, and a host of other commercial and scholarly materials.[3]. Striphas shows some interesting phenomenon and events that are taking place in the contemporary book and printing industry.” Also, avoid using “clearly.”
 * The formatting is still a little rough. There needs: a proper reference section (the formatting is already built into Wikipedia – use the tool), add section headers using the == Header == notation
 * Add hyperlinks to internal links in the article; ex. Ted Striphas, Barnes & Noble, Amazon

Great start
I like the article a lot and I think you have the majority of the information needed for a strong foundation. I would try to section it off though and maybe give the reader some more "bite size" pieces to chew through for lack of a better metaphor. There are a few sentences that sound funny to me, especially the part about the Oprah book club to Harry Potter and this to that part. It seems to be trying to convey too much info in such a short space. Just personal preference though. The linked citations are nice and will help for further reading but it may be beneficial to add links internal to Wikipedia to tie the article to its genre of literature and such. Also antidote is randomly capitalized. Great start! Phoenix5100 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

More Content
In the award section, you refer to the book as "outstanding", which is a personal opinion. Also, most of your material seems to be in one big chunk of text. It would simpler to understand if you either break up the text or add more headings and subheading to the article. The way it is right now, I don't think meets Wikipedia's notability or neutral criteria. I like that you are citing the sources for you info. You have a interesting article overall, you just need to write more about the book chapters and organize your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mht5627 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An Idea
Just an idea, perhaps with your "index" section you could make that into a section in the table of contents of the article and have each chapter be a subsection of the index section. That way you could add summary information about each chapter and have it be organized in a neat and tidy way. If you don't access to specific information from each chapter then leaving it as is is probably okay. Amk5458 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)