User talk:OlivierMalle/sandbox

Comments

First of all, great job on your drafts––these look solid. I was impressed by your ability to introduce the basics of the censorship that Alexie’s novel has been through, before the specific cases are introduced. I like that you incorporated a quotation from Alexie himself, which gives the reader a wider perspective on what this censorship really means to him, especially in terms of Alexie’s initial purpose of writing novel. You also touch upon the specific topics that have been deemed controversial within the novel, which is important for readers to know before reading the cases as well. I think your Brunswick case is also well written. You provide all the important important such as the date, location, which schools, who filed the complaint, etc. And you explained very clearly what exactly happened in the beginning, how it progressed, and how it resolved. Great job!

I would suggest a couple changes for your drafts. In general, I think you need to add in more in-text citations. These citations will give the readers a sense of where your information is coming from, and also help you to avoid having a bias. And especially when there is a quotation, it is important to cite who the speaker is. Specifically for your censorship paragraph, I think one thing you can add is a definition of censorship. You talk about what Alexie’s book has been through in terms of censorship, but never fully explain what censorship is. It is obviously a commonly known concept, but I still think it would be beneficial for you to define it in just one or two sentences. I also think you can add a concluding sentence to this paragraph, while introducing the following cases on Alexie’s book. For your Brunswick paragraph, the only suggestion I have is to change a couple sentence structures and split it into two paragraphs, so that your ideas are easier to follow (You can see my suggestions on the google doc).

In terms of grammar/spelling errors, I made those specific changes on the google doc, so you can refer back to that to see my suggestions. And as I previously mentioned, one of the most important changes you could make is to add in-text citations, and make your sentences more concise and easy to follow. But overall, it looks great.

One thing I noticed by your article were your clear details. Whether it was stating the different controversial topics that the book contained, or stating the chronological events of the Brunswick case, the details made the writings much more interesting and easier to understand. Developing the details of my writing/cases is definitely something I would like to incorporate into my own articles.

Fantastic job on your articles! -Mina- Ml1624 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Olivier,

Good Job on both drafts! Both articles are well written and proved insightful information about the topics. The Brunswick case well written and organized. It gives the readers the most relevant information to understand the case and see both sides to the school banning. The introduction to the censorship cases is also really solid and illustrates both sides of why the book is being banned in school all over the United States. There are some minor spelling and grammar mistakes in both of your drafts, which I have marked and provided the corrections. Another aspect of your drafts that need some revision is adding more citations. Wikipedia is very strict about in-text citation and requires that all the information posted gives the reader some understanding of where the information comes from. Remember the suggest that Mrs. Fuisz gave us in class, you can also review the training on the Wikipedia Dashboard.

In conclusion, your drafts are clear, have a lot of details, and proved neutral information which is excellent. Overall good job, just make this minor changes, add more citations and you will be good to post! Tamf787 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)