User talk:Bdahik
Bdahik, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Bdahik! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Bdahik, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
KBurton Peer Review
[edit]There are two students who have been editing this article and I am not sure who did what edits, so this review applies to the entire article rather than individual editors. I had also done a review prior to deciding on which Jane Austen page I would work on, so I used this to compare changes. In general, I think the changes are beneficial and have significantly improved the overall article, but I have some concerns and there are additional sections that appear in other Jane Austen articles on her novels that could have been added. Specific comments:
- The areas I had noted in my initial review that were underdeveloped have been addressed. Those were “Major Themes” and “Allusions to other works.” The section “Development” that had been in the original page has been absorbed into the remaining sections.
- Other Jane Austen novel Wikipedia pages have sections for “Reception” and “Publication History” and “Criticism”. There is information in the existing sections concerning these topics, so sections could have been created that might reduce the size of the existing sections, making the entire article more readable.
- I noted in my original comments that this article seemed to be under-cited. That concern has been addressed, but I have some concerns about some of the references used for this article. Three of the references (Sparknotes, shmoop, and Gradesaver) are not considered scholarly references and could be challenged from a number of different perspectives. Jkburton (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Bdahik's Peer Review
[edit]Hello There,
Based on the course website, I see that we are paired up to conduct peer reviews on each other and I must say that I'm very impressed by all the work and revisions that you made to your article, seeing as how you didn't have a partner. In all honesty, I really didn't see many issues within your article because all the information seems to flow smoothly between paragraphs and I didn't detect any grammatical errors of the sort (e.g., sentence structure, capitalization, and punctuation, etc.); however, I feel like the information under the "Plot/Summary," and "Character Descriptions," weren't cited with enough references, but then again considering the length of this article and seeing as how you were the only one who put in the effort, I understand if you ran out of time. Furthermore, given how important the other details were, I wouldn't worry too much about the "Character Description," section as it is irrelevant and less prominent in terms of citations or accuracy. I think people are more concerned about the "Plot/Summary," section though, so I would consider adding a few more citations in.
Other than that, I commend you for your work and I think you did an awesome job on everything else!
Bdahik's Peer Review cont.
[edit]I forgot to thank you for the feedback on my article. Just to clarify what my work was, I had edited the first paragraph of my article and I made revisions to the "Character Descriptions," page. I'm almost done with this section and I plan on finishing it by this weekend before it is due for class. I also plan on fixing my citations because you're correct in that my sources may be questionable, but I have every intention on correcting this issue as well.
Thank you for the feedback!