User talk:Adelaas/sandbox

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The first thing that stood out to me about your corrections in comparison to the original document, was the fact that you presented the main topic, changing evidence, and then opposing views. When I read the original article it seems as it if is simply summarizing all of the information from the book, but did not really offer insight into how critics viewed "Feminism" or "Utopianism." I really appreciated the different views and being able to get a glimpse into all of them.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
Some of the changes I would suggest is perhaps giving more reference to the opposing views critics. For example, I notice that you mention "other critics" or "some critics." Perhaps I am wrong, and I can only imagine that there must be a million critics, but it would be helpful to clarify on who these critics are and give them credit for their ideas. If not, I wonder if a better option would be to cut back on the amount of opposing vies and elaborate on those few with the most references and/or popularized ideas. I think this is would be an improvement because it would allow the critic's ideas and views to be credited and would allow the reader to get a more concise summary of how the work is viewed. Jeanettegome72 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)