User talk:Will Schott/George (novel)

Olivia's Evaluation

Your additions to the plot section of the article are very concise and clear, and they make the plot section a lot easier to follow. There are some minor typos in your additions but those can be easily fixed before the edits go live. I would suggest looking through the section before edits go live and making sure that all the verbs used are consistent in their tenses. My only other suggestion for this section would be to introduce Jeff, since one of the sentences you added references him with no context about his character. Your additions to the analysis section of the article from Mel Morrow's review are a good starting point from the section. You extrapolated some good analysis from the review and the paragraphs you added flow smoothly and logically. There are a couple awkward sentences (mainly the ones starting with 'during Melissa's transition period' and 'through these interactions') that I think should be restructured for clarity. I also think some of the information you included from Morrow's review either doesn't belong in the analysis section (for example, the sentence you included that quotes the review ("Morrow states that 'Gino's excellent writing is gravy...") and makes more sense in the reception section. Make sure to cite each sentence in this section even though they're from the same review. You did a good job with signal phrases and your edits are coming along really nicely!

Oliviab219 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Chase's reply

In the lead I would add a bit more author background simply stating "American author,..." some credential, would be sufficient. I noticed that you had a bit of an over-use of commas, you may want to just proof-read for punctuation before publishing. For instance, in the second sentence of your Plot section you don't need a comma after "As" and instead should just leave a space. For the analysis section, the second paragraph is not signal-phrased correctly, you should start with the signal phrase, not end with it. Additionally, adding more varied sourcing would strengthen your analysis instead of just using one source; it'd be helpful to shorten your one source's contribution to analysis and then find other sources to back up the additional points. Overall I think your contribution has a lot of potential, the language is generally in-line with wikipedia's guidelines. You need to work on signal phrasing in the later part of your analysis and get more sourcing.

My Response

What feedback did you receive on the article talk page from your peer reviewers?

The feedback I received from my peer reviewers is incredibly helpful. They pointed out several typos and grammatical errors that I was unable to catch. Chase made a great point to shorten what I had for the analysis page with the addition of another article. After writing the analysis page I was able to find a second article that is viable to adding to the page. This is one of the problems I had during research because the book is new.

Based on this feedback, how will you revise the new content you drafted?

To revise the new content I will fix all the grammatical errors and awkward sentences as well as adding more to the analysis section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Schott (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)