User talk:Jillkdelong/sandbox

Reema Peer-Review

1. Jill has a really strong outline of what she’ll be working on and incorporating into her Wikipedia article. For instance Jill’s biography of Abby Frucht provides all the basic background information informing the reader of Frucht’s profession, awards, and personal information such as where she was born and raised. She also does a great job of explaining the subject matter of a lot of Frucht’s work. She also has has a good amount of sources to work with which will definitely make her article more reliable.
2. I think it would be better if she were to start with the personal information of her early stages in life and then progress to her later stages where she can discuss her profession and accomplishments. Doing this would provide a more chronological understanding of Frucht’s life. Also, in the rewards section, it would be great if she could offer a bit more context about when and why Frucht’s received those awards.
3. A major change I think Jill might consider is in the section where she describes Frucht’s works. I think it would be great if she could offer brief summaries of Frucht’s novels because that would give the reader more insight into how Frucht writes about her subject matter.
4. Jill’s article is making me want to do research to see if the book I’m working with received any awards, and I would also take more time to explore the themes of the novel and see if it corresponds with some of Sahar Khalifeh’s other works.

Lead

Ask yourself:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No.

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No.

Sourcing

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Not yet.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Not yet.

MICHAEL SHUFRO - Peer Review

1. Jill has collected some solid introductory information. She keeps the information well-compressed and puts forth a useful sense of who the author is for someone looking to have a surface grasp of the author's relevance and works. She also has a good selection of sources.

2. The main thing I would encourage would be adding more structure into the article. By just adding in some bolded headers, it will make the article look a lot more polished and help provide a clearer kind of structure through which to think about the information thus far collected and presented. Also, I would encourage adding a bit more text and filling it out a little. Not too much but a bit more would be useful I think.

3. Again, I think adding in headers and creating a very clear structure will be most useful. I like the sections thus far and think that's a great start. Also, attributing sources to the various sentences will help to really finalize the article and give it a sense of authority.

4. Its useful for me to see Jill's article because it is well-compressed. I have trouble handling scope and want to put in too much. So, looking at this article is helpful to me because it shows me how I can distill down parts of my own article and simplify it for the wiki-reader.

Michaelshufro (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)