User talk:SpencerWilker23/sandbox

MATT's Feedback

1) Are all the parts there?

Everything needed is there, but you could break the background into Background and Education sections, since its pretty wordy for an intro paragraph.

2) Is the opening "hook" strong?

Similar to what I said before, I like all the content, it could just be reordered a bit. There is a lot of talk about her background, but since it isn't broken into smaller paragraphs I think it could seem a bit busy and dry. I think changing it up to smaller paragraphs or different sections would help.

3) How's the style?

Style is good. I think the article is well ordered and I think that the overall look of it is strong. I like how you keep the article pretty neutral and non-biased. The only thing I would say is you call Dr. Mary Vavrus "an extremely accomplished scholar" in the works section, which I thing could be a little biased for a wiki article.

4) Overall impression of the article

I really like it overall! I think probably the only thing that I can say is that you should add more sections or more paragraphs to break up the information a little bit more. It would also be helpful because this allows readers to specifically look up the information they are interested in rather than having to read a large paragraph.

Some sentences you could change

ORIGINAL: Dr. Mary Vavrus is an extremely accomplished scholar and has written many journal articles discussing many different issues within her studies of media representations of gender and media and the military among other topics.

CHANGED: Dr. Mary Vavrus is an accomplished scholar and has written many journal articles discussing many different issues within her studies of media representations of gender and media and the military among other topics.

MICHELLE'S FEEDBACK
1) are all the parts there? Yes all of the parts are there. I think it could be elaborated a little bit further for more factual information about her, possibly separate her education from the background information and discuss how it has influenced her work?

2) is the opening "hook" strong? I think your beginning hook has good information, but isn't necessarily something that "draws the reader in". Maybe consider using some information about her notoriety to show the influence that she has on the communication department, or related to gender? The content is good, but could possibly be presented in a more interesting way.

3) how's the style? (spelling, grammar, clear sentences, correct verb tense and) I think the style works very well. Everything is presented very straight forward and to the point, giving clear information about the scholar.

4) overall impression of the article Overall, I think the article is well written and has a lot of great content. I think you could further develop the introduction so that it is stronger and shows her importance. Other than that, I think your information is clear, and is provided in the appropriate sections and format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.lynch (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aburnett412 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)