User talk:Tylerweatherill/sandbox

Nice job finding articles of interest, Tyler. The first two are probably going to be harder than the last two. There seems to be a real gap in contributions about the liberation of the Netherlands. As you move forward, be sure that your contributions draw upon the required sources and align with our own course. Two suggestions along these lines. First, is there potential alignment with the Royal Canadian Regiment? Second, can you make your contribution align with our reflection on Canadian identity and what you are reading in Warrior Nation. There is some real opportunity here, I think.

Peer Review
Hey Tyler, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. It was a comprehensive and informative article on a topic I had previously little knowledge on, and your sections were clearly laid out and in a chronological fashion that made it easier to follow and see the development of the events in the Netherlands. The sources you have used to help formulate your article seem to carry academic credibility, and the amount of sources you have used has allowed you to write in greater depth on the subject, and draw upon key examples.

I found that you drew upon many individuals during these events which helped understand the key figures during the Dutch liberation, drawing upon Canadian individuals who aided the eventual liberation of the Netherlands, and the links to their names help the reader explore these individuals in greater depth through their own Wikipedia pages. Additionally, direct quotation makes your primary source examples ever more precise, and I have always been a big fan of using quotes from key individuals in history essays, so seeing that you have drawn upon direct quotation has inspired me to go and find some for my own article. One section I enjoyed, in particular, was the final one which focussed on 'The Canadian Legacy in the Netherlands', which I thought was a nice touch to end your article. This was because it demonstrated the Dutch admiration for the Canadian in helping the liberation.

In terms of improvements, I think a lot more could be said on German Resistance, as you allude to it in your article but the section seems pretty brief compared to your other well-informed sections. Although I understand that maybe you don't want to focus too much on German Resistance, I feel that a few examples of German Responses will only enrich your article more, and develop upon what I believe could be a highly intriguing section of the article. Additionally, is there any way you could include Dutch individuals (e.g. military leaders) to demonstrate precise negotiations between both Canadian Military and the Dutch.

Overall I thought this is an excellent article Tyler, very well constructed and thought through. Apart from maybe the German Resistance section, thought that all your sections were thoroughly comprehensive. DBayley (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)DBayley

Ian.R Peer Review
Tyler, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianwr (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

What your article does best is tell a story. Overall, and particularly in the "Final Phase" section, your story is succinct and efficient, giving all detail necessary and linking the specific names/places to other Wikipedia pages (however, saying "Refer to more info on Foulkes", in the "May 4-5" section, is unecessary, as he is linked above). This approach of telling the story showed best when you discussed May 4-5. The detail you used let me feel a sense of what they felt in the period of unofficial peace, which is a quality of the best historical writing.

Yet, there were a few times when the information suffered for the storytelling. In the "May 4-5" section, for example, you start on the 5th, go back to the 4th, and then end on the 5th again. Telling the story like this works from a narrative stance (in setting up characters, scene, giving stakes to the affair), but it confused me when I was trying get the facts of what happened and what caused it to happen. As well, in the "Rhineland" section, you make the statement, "If it was successful, it would lead to defeating Germany". The sentence itself is useful for giving stakes, but doesn't itself provide information. If you wanted to say it made the men who fought more anxious of losing, then it would be best to say that outright and/or use an example to show it. Using "if" and "would" also suggest that Germany did win, which is not true.

The only other major issue is that, particularly in the first two paragraphs of "Rhineland" and last two paragraphs of "Legacy", the writing becomes choppy. Mainly, the sentences are too short and (partially as a result) the ideas you discuss don't flow into each other, which makes it difficult for the reader to fully grasp the progression of the events and how they each matter to the topic as a whole. Take, as an example, the quote from Zuehlke in the end. I believe you could take the information given in that quote, and re-word it in a way that more explicitly links it to the theme of remembrance in the "Legacy" section. I recommend you re-read your article aloud, as if you were going to present it in class, to help you find places where the wording might be awkward, and to find ways to smooth out some of the rough edges without becoming too conversational.

The story you tell here is interesting, as there is no shortage of untold war stories, and with minor style changes I can easily see it on a published Wikipedia page. Good job.

Ianwr (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

'''Very good job with this peer review guys. You both do a good job at drawing out Tyler's strengths while also pointing him to areas where the article could be improved. This is exactly the type of critical feedback I was hoping you would provide. Tpcanoe (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)'''