User talk:Rheasegismundo/sandbox

Rhea, your sandbox/analysis looks good! Profhanley (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Rhea - - I think you'll need different sources, i.e the press release from the publisher isn't going to work. Can you look for reviews of the novel - - NY Times Book Review, Times Literary Supplement, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Rhea--I think you did a nice job with the structuring of your article. I think it is crucial to add the "Reception" and "Film Adaptation" in order to emphasis this author's success. This made me think about adding another section to my own page, so thank you!

Couple things: you may want to add a wikilink to the word "nazi" since this novel deals with the Holocaust, and to the word "themes" to emphasis narrative (just an idea). As you did a great job with all the wikilinks throughout! I was slightly concerned about the use of the two critics review, but I think it allows the reader to stay neutral. Overall, I think you did a nice job at engaging in this project. Hope this helps a little. Good job and good luck! QuiteCurious (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

1) From the looks of it, it seems like you did a much needed rehaul as far as the formatting of the page goes. You did a great job at clarifying the lead section, which was previously way too wordy. Now the lead reads very concisely. 2) As a minor change, I would suggest adding a little tagline or section explaining that the book is split into two parts called "Book I" and "Book II" to avoid confusion. 3) I think the most important thing you can do at this point is maybe to expand the "main characters" or add a bit more to the "Reception" section with awards the book has received. 4) Looking at your page draft definitely helped me think more critically about what goes into my lead section to avoid it becoming too wordy or unnecessary! Sorenss (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhea's Peer Review

Rhea, you did a great job of organizing your article and sub headings in a clear and structured way. The strongest parts of your wiki page are the lead/intro and the Theme, Style, & Structure sections. Both sections are informative, but I think you did an especially good job of matching the "scholarly tone" that wikipedia pages typically present, if that makes sense.

If I could make some suggestions for your lead/opening paragraph, the first I would make is perhaps adding a sentence describing the genre of the text. A lot of wikipedia pages for books typically mention the genre in the opening paragraph. I must give you credit because you do mention that it is a novel. Can you get even more specific? Is it a historical fiction novel? Drama? Is it a novel based on reality but with dramatized events?

Another suggestion, the introduction/lead should touch upon everything that your article. Maybe add a sentence that briefly describes what the book is about? Remember that a good lead should reflect the most important bits of information in your article. As it is now, your lead tells me more about the awards/accolades that the book has received, but little about the actual book itself.

As I mentioned, the Theme, Style, and Structure section is very informative. My suggestion for this section would be to maybe retool the formatting of this part. I would maybe add each sub-category as it’s own paragraph; in other words, within the section of THEME STYLE STRUCTURE, add one paragraph for themes of the novel, then one paragraph for style, then one for structure. The way it is written now seems slightly cramped and jumbled. (By jumbled, I mean that certain sentences can be placed in other places. For example, this excerpt: “Fugitive Pieces also contains mentions of the senses, which are shown through an emphasis of Jakob hearing what happened to his family, rather than seeing the event take place, which in turns adds to his trauma and his inability to gain closure. Similarly, Ben has only heard stories but never had first hand experience. Michaels uses this to convey a paradox between what we hear, the language, and then the silence that follows due to the suffering and trauma of others.” I think this sentence would make more sense if it came earlier, in the theme paragraph since it relates to the themes of the novel. Just a suggestion of organization and aesthetics though.

Finally, The Holocaust is an important part of the novel, maybe mention the Holocaust in the lead. Holocaust can be a serious subject for some people, yet your lead/overview makes no mention of it at all. This might be something your page wants to address. Maybe you could link the term to the Holocaust wiki page? Overall, great job Rhea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris train (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)