User talk:Zach Riviere/sandbox

Evaluation of Proposed Changes
I really like that you found and included information about a review which shows a conflicting viewpoint to the reviews already included in the article. In terms of your analysis section, I think all the information you included is important, but does not really fit into Wikipedia's recommendation for an analysis section in an article about a book. Wikipedia recommends that the analysis section includes scholarly analysis of the book, but due to its recent publication and its being a satirical book, it may be difficult to find that. What you wrote may fit better under the reception section. I also think the information about the book's publication and initial sales is a relevant content gap that you filled well. One recommendation I have is reworking your analysis paragraph to improve flow. As you are citing a lot of sources in that paragraph, it feels a little choppy. Including transition phrases and signal phrases to introduce ideas would improve the paragraph. --BenTelerski (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation of Proposed Changes
You seem to have a lot of relevant and resourced information, all of which would be beneficial for an outsider to read when researching the book. I think your inclusion of various receptions and viewpoints of the book really adds to the article as a whole, and the information you included about the profits and success of the book gives readers an unbiased example of how well received the book is. One recommendation I have is to go through and proofread. I noticed a few minor errors and some of the transitions are a bit choppy. Overall, good job filling in the missing information. I think adding what you did in really gives the reader a better idea of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabro (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Feedback
a. For the content gap the feedback I received was that the information I provided was very helpful for the article. It would allow the reader to understand where the book is coming from. There was some feedback where my flow was a little choppy. They recommended to add signal phrases to help smooth that out. Also, there was feedback that the information I provided fits better under a reception section rather an analysis section, due to the fact the book is fairly new and there is no scholarly sources. b. I plan on using signal phrases to change my thought and make the sentence structure clear and concise. I am still evaluating whether I want to delete my new analysis section and put all this information under reception. There was no scholarly sources but the analysis section is key for why the book was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Riviere (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)