User talk:Paigee33/sandbox

Hi!

You have clearly done a lot of research and I learned a great deal from your article. In using Rauser's rubric you maintain a very neutral style of writing. However, you do not have links to your sources via citations. There is a way to reference it to a link footnote in your article (I can show you if you are confused). I am not sure you need to always introduce the specific sources you are using in your writing and it would be ok to summarize/ paraphrase and then link/cite it. Your sources are quality and scholarly (its of great quality)! I find your breakdown and categories very interesting like high heels with feminism and medical research. Pictures would make it even more special. Your writing is of strong quality but I am not sure your style of introducing the writer and source is totally necessary. Sometimes it over words the piece. There are also some grammar things like capitalization on the last sentence in the lead. I think it is organized well. I wonder if the types of heels would be nice under the history because it connects to heel history. Also there is a way to make it a subheading maybe suggestions under medical research. The rubric requires photographs so don't forget to add them! Once you add the photos and read over for grammar there will be great polish. -Erin

Emily's Peer Review

Hi Paige! Here is my peer review according to the categories in the rubric:

1. Neutral style, links, and solid citations: Your writing is neutral and balanced. The only exception might be phrases like "modern day," "modern trends," "present day," and "currently." Time, well, changes, and our "now" isn't the same as the "now" of someone potentially reading this in the year 3000, or even in 2050. You might want to consider changing the wording of these phrases to something like "in the early 21st century." Most of your substantial facts are cited, though there are some that are not, like the entire "Suggestions for how to avoid these problems" section. You also make some broad statements such as "There are many millions of kinds of high heels." This is a big assertion that should be cited. Prof. Rauser wants to see hotlinks to related Wikipedia articles, so you might want to add those. Your organization and formatting is appropriate to a good Wikipedia article.

2. Special features: I think the Medical Research heading is your special feature. It is interesting and well-researched. You also have some great images.

3. Quality and comprehensiveness of research: Your article is chock full of juicy facts that are supported by a variety of scholarly sources. As I wrote in #1, not all major facts are cited. I'm sure you'll recognize these when you read it over again.

4. Quality of writing and argument: You have a very clear writing style that flows well. I do agree with Erin that you don't need author introductions like "Blanco describes" and "Morris argues." In terms of organization, I have some suggestions:

The structure of the Medical Research heading is a bit confusing. I would suggest dividing it into sections with clear descriptions in the subheading. I also think the "Is wearing high heels worth it?" subheading is underdeveloped compared to the main section of Medical Research.

I think the Suggestions for How to Avoid These Problems heading can be combined with the Medical Research heading. It might work well as a subheading.

Since you have a References section, I don't think you need a Works Cited heading.

The page more than adequately explains the topic - well done! I can tell you did a lot of research.

5. Images and general polish: You include a lot of great images here. I would recommend captioning them so readers know exactly what they are. (You can do this in the window that comes up when you add or edit an image.) I did notice some small errors in capitalization, punctuation, and grammar (we all make them!). I'm sure you'll notice these when you read it over again.

Overall, excellent job! -EmilyStein (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)