User talk:Zac.schroepfer/sandbox

Dear Zac, Some suggestions are in brackets: In Ankeny, Iowa, in November of 2008, parents at the local elementary school [is there a school name?] were concerned with the contents of And Tango Makes Three [italicize book title], and requested the [that the school]library remove the book. After the library denied their request, the parents appealed to their school board, asking that And Tango Makes Three be placed in a restricted section of the library, [allowing] only parents [to] check it out. Citing [the nature in which the parents believe - delete] [ add - their belief that] the book attempts to normalize homosexuality to young children, the parents [request comes from the idea] [assume?] that the children of the school should only be allowed to engage with this type of literature with the explicit permission of the parents [needs citation]. The restriction of the book would allow the parents [to control?] [delete - to directly oversee] when and where students could read this type of literature. The parents [even went further to write - not neutral] [add- also sent?] a letter to the newspaper of the city of Ankeny in order to “warn” [is this a citation from an article? Why quotation marks?] other parents about the book. In an effort to preserve the book within the school district, PEN America and the American Library Association sent letters urging the board to preserve students' access to And Tango Makes Three. [Explain that these are anti-censorship groups and possibly quote from the article.]In December of 2008, the School Board of Ankeny voted, by a vote of 6-1, to keep the book in the libraries as well as to add on an additional process of book review for the school system. During the hearing ,the school board’s lawyer argued that a decision to remove the book from the shelves, if challenged, would likely not hold up in court [why?]. [1][2][3] Fuiszl (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Fuiszl

Comments from Morgan
Hey Zac,

First off, you have a great draft w/ reliable information that is clearly described. I've left some comments on the document that I have emailed to you with some suggestions. For the bigger picture, there are some small issues with promoting neutrality, some other major details, like direct quotes, could be more helpful, and your "Background" section could be split into two, one being the subsection delving deeper into the subject area of homosexuality in animals. Other than that, great work so far!

Morganvr12 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Meredith
Comments for Zac’s Wikipedia Page:

•	Parents’ request (5th line of Iowa case section)

•	Define type of literature/ explain what you mean when you write “allow the parents to directly oversee when and where students could read this type of literature”

•	Central Park Zoo should be capitalized in the 5th line of the background section

•	There should be more citations in the 2nd paragraph of the background section, especially after the Anderson quote

Zac,

Your paragraphs are very well written. The sentences flow nicely and you provide some great research from a variety of reliable sources. Definitely make sure that you cite your info within the paragraphs, especially after quotes. Also, maybe provide a direct quote from a parent in the Iowa section. Great job! Meredithtibbals (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Meredithtibbals