User talk:Tamf787/sandbox

Comments:

Great job on both of these drafts––they look pretty solid to me! For the Stockton case, you did very well in providing a neutral perspective on your part. Rather than giving your opinion, you clearly stated the quotations given in the sources that you found, which give the readers a precise idea of what the case was about and what different people were fighting for. For example, when you talk about the main concerns about the novel, it is clear that the parents are the ones who have made those concerns. For the book reviews, you provide a wide range of reactions and responses to the novel. What I especially like about these reviews is that it provides a different perspective to the information given in the censorship section. Rather than talking more about why people are against this book, you include information that fights in favor of this book, which the Wikipedia article definitely needs. So great job on filling in that content gap!

One change I would suggest for both of these drafts is to use less quotations and do more paraphrasing and citing instead. Quotations are definitely important, and you’ve got some great ones in these drafts––but I think it would make it easier for the readers to understand your paragraphs if you summarized the ideas in your own words, and had maybe limit to 1-2 quotations for each draft/section. For the reviews section, I’m wondering if you there were anything in each of those reviews that explained the author’s point of view on the controversy about the novel. I think that would be a great component to add if you could find something like that and relate it back to the censorship cases. Other than that, you did well providing the specific details needed for each section, such as the dates, location, chronology, etc.

In terms of grammar/spelling mistakes, I made those specific edits on the google doc, so go back and check the document to see what changes I made. But as I previously stated, I think the best change you could make on your draft is to work on the paraphrasing and to use less quotations, in order to make it easier for readers to understand your ideas.

One thing I noticed from your articles that I would like to incorporate into my own drafts is in-text citations. You do a great job of always citing your information, so that readers know where the sources are coming from, and that you are not the one giving the opinions about the book, but that you are simply stating someone else’s opinion that you found in your sources. I think I could improve my drafts by citing my sources better in the text.

Overall, your drafts look fantastic! :) -Mina- Ml1624 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I thought both sections were really well done. You did a good job with the specific case of censorship of telling the story with neutral language, and of not leaving out key facts. In your reviews section, you did a good job summarizing the points and using each review you introduced to build a more complete picture of what critics have liked about the novel. Throughout, you did a really good job with signal phrases and in text citations.

This draft is really solid, so my advice would be to copyedit and correct the small errors that I tried to point out in my edits.

Maybe you could find a less positive review to add some of the other perspective. I know this other perspective is captured in the censorship cases, but you could make this section more neutral by adding some criticism of the novel.

I am adding more examples to the section on censorship, so I will include yours as a great improvement over what the article currently has on that case.

OlivierMalle (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)