User talk:AGraceP
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Florida/AML_2410_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, AGraceP, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Leave feedback here. BookcaseXerox (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is Dumagoes's Peer Review feedback for you:
I am satisfied with the lead and know the importance of the topic, and it makes me want to know more and read the book. The lead greatly reflects the most important information about the subject. It does appear to give more weight to the synopsis of the book, but it isn’t too unbalanced.
The sections are very well organized and in a sensible order. However, the background section may make more sense placed before the synopsis.
The synopsis could include more detail of what the book is about and include more action of the characters that would allow the “Main Characters” section to make more sense. There is a sense of redundancy in this section about Chloe finding who she is. Including more details about the book could make this fact appear less repetitive. The themes and reception reflect very well the perspectives represented in the published literature.
The themes section may need some brushing up in terms of neutrality. “Standing up for oneself” needs to make a claim on behalf of a named person or group. The explanations for the themes seem somewhat opinionated because of this lack of claim. Besides this, the article appears to be mostly neutral.
The sources are good and there are many, so it does not appear that a lot of statements are attributed to one or two sources. Citation is needed for “Standing up for oneself”.
The information included in the article is very well rounded and impressive. I suggest that you find better sources for the Themes, but otherwise the article is well written. I really liked the Reception section and hope to add a section like this to my own article. BookcaseXerox (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I have some notes for you:
- Avoid using self-published sources in articles unless we can verify them as an authority on the topic, meaning that they have to have been routinely seen as a reliable source by other reliable sources. The main issue with these is verification, as we can't verify that what they say is correct - even with reviews this can pose a problem. You can read more about this here.
- Interviews are seen as primary sources since it's direct quotes from the person being interviewed. We can use them to back up basic claims, but not to show notability.
- Trade reviews are typically seen as trivial sources on Wikipedia. The arguments against them being usable to establish notability is that they review a large amount of material and are often positive, plus the reviews are typically very short. I don't always agree with this since they don't review everything and aren't universally positive, but they are weak sources as far as articles go.
- I removed the NAPPA Award from the article since the website seems to confirm that it's a for-profit vanity award. Vanity Awards are typically ones where people have to pay to submit their product and pay exorbitant amounts on top of that. A good rule of thumb is that if people have to pay to submit their item and the company gives out awards by the hundreds each year, it's a vanity award. At the very least it isn't a selective award, which would pose an issue when it comes to establishing it as a notable award. Essentially, places like this typically give anyone who submits an item an award, so the person is really just paying to have a seal. It's best to leave off these awards from articles.
- We can only summarize what others have explicitly stated about the book in reliable sources. The themes section is partially unsourced and there were some issues with some of the claims not being more clearly attributed.
I hope that this helps - right now it really needs more sourcing to help establish notability. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)