User talk:Vabro/sandbox

Evaluation of Proposed Changes
It looks like you did a good job of filling content gaps, including information on challenges against the graphic novels, publication history, and commentary from the author about themes. It does not look like you included citations in your drafted additions, but I assume you will add citations later from your bibliography. I like how you reorganized the background section. Your changes put the information in the section in an order that is easier to understand than the current article. One more addition you could make would be some content on scholarly analysis in an analysis section. It is a series of graphic novels that was published recently, so there may not be much on it, but it would be worth adding if you can find any relevant information. --BenTelerski (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Zach's Evaluation
I think Ginny did a good job because the original article was poorly sourced. However, she did find the original sources that supported the evidence. I like what she did to the lead section. At first this section was very broad and did not give a well written synopsis of the article. But, Ginny found source from where the author gave his own take of the story. I like how every viewpoint was credited with who wrote it. I noticed there was a lot of criticism about the book and even parents wanting in banned. Also, people have said that the book shouldn't even be taken seriously. I know you found facts about how well the book did on rankings, but Is there any sources on people supporting the books message and promoting it? Maybe adding signal phrases could help the structure of connecting certain claims.

Evaluation of Proposed Changes
1. In the feedback provided, my peers suggested that I add some content on scholarly analysis section to my article so that people can have a better idea of the thought process behind the graphic novels as well as themes that are present throughout them. They also suggested adding signal phrases and maybe some more information of positive receptions of the work, specifically someone in defense of the comics. 2. I think it might be worthwhile to try and find a source that showcases someone defending the comics, especially if the defender is specifically defending them from the controversies surrounding the comics. In my research so far I have found interviews in which the author defends his work but none of other individuals. If I can find this information I think it would add a new layer and point of view to my article. I'm not sure if I am the one who should be making the scholarly analysis page. Even though it would not be a personal analysis, I still feel that because I am not particularly familiar with the comics, I will not be able to properly determine what aspects of them are important enough to provide an analysis for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabro (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)