User talk:Skalaola/sandbox/2

First of all I'd like to start by saying thank you for sharing your article with me. I had no idea what Parataxis was until reading this. From that I'd like to say that your edits although minimal were some great examples from some myths and I was able to make the connection. But with minimal edits there isn't much room for improving the article. There may not have been a lot to write about on Parataxis but try and expand more maybe on the history, where it's from, more examples from myths etc etc. Besides that I think your article is good but has room for improvement.


 * Cleo120 thanks for your kind feedback (although I'm a bit concerned that you didn't know what parataxis was since we talked about it in this course)...!Skalaola I agree that the examples are great, and I think that your peer reviewer is right in suggesting areas to expand upon. You did a great job cleaning up the wording to be more straightforward in the existing text, but I don't know if you necessarily need to take out the Beckett example. Have you consulted all of the sources listed in the current article for possible areas to expand upon? In the 'origin of the term' section, the sentence "a number of definitions have emerged, often conflicting" could definitely be added to (i.e. what are the conflicting definitions?). A quick Google Scholar search for 'parataxis' yields some interesting results, have you looked in to any of these? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=parataxis&btnG= I'm looking forward to seeing how this article evolves, keep up the hard work! Gardneca (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)