User talk:Scoay/sandbox

Sources look good. Do you have a plan for editing the page? Perhaps a content analysis would help? Profhanley (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Make sure your statements written are directly tied to citations in your reference section. Make sure your reference section is properly formatted, as it currently is not. In regards to your question on details in the "Analysis" section, I think you should try to add as much detail as possible. Multiple ways of reading do exist, and if you can present these different views in a properly cited, neutral manner, then power to you! That would add a ton of really juicy content! Dmakeever (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Derek

Patrick's Peer Review

The sources you've chosen seem to be great. The majority of them focus on the actual story of "Elephants." Some feedback I got on my page, from the wiki editor, though is that we should avoid using sources that don't specifically focus on your selected topic. For mine, I'm doing a character page, and Shaylor said to avoid articles that were about the novel she appears in rather than articles that were solely focused on her. This is what he said to me:

Another thing to be careful about are reviews and articles that are mainly about the book itself. What you need are things that are either primarily or solely about the character or they go into depth about the character in a way that’s separate from the character being mentioned while talking about the book.

So in your case, the focus needs to be on the story and not on Hemmingway. These two citations are my concern: Forget the Legend and Read the Work: Teaching Two Stories by Ernest Hemingway and Hemingway and the Creation of Twentieth-Century Dialogue.

Your page immediately jumps into analysis, but a reader can't create analysis without knowing about the actual story. So include the opening sections of general information (the year it was written, the author, etc.) and then jump into the plot summary/overview. Look at the page for this book: We Have Always Lived in the Castle. Granted your story might not give you as much to say as a full length novel, but you can still mimic the sections that this particular page (or any wiki page for a book) and adjust as needed.

You have a section for "style" on your page. And then you have a possible edit for dialogue. You could say that Dialogue is part of the style of the short story. Use the 'heading' options at the top of the page to create indents and then it will create somewhat of a 'table of contents' at the top of the page. Then viewers can click on that portion and directly jump to that portion of the page.

In the Analysis section you raise the question of adding in more evidence. Sometimes less is more, but wikipedia is also supposed to be unbiased. So maybe present multiple analyses of the text so then you will be presenting multiple views on the work. Maybe even summarize the idea that the analysis is never clear cut and it it's usually in the hands of the reader to determine the meaning, as it pertains to their personal situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfuller412 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think you have a good start to this page. There isn't much on the original article so I think adding content should be one of your major focuses. The sources look good, maybe add a bit more in analysis and content and try to back up these claims with your sources (i.e. link to pages and citations). The page could use a theme section possibly or critical reception. Has the story been adapted in any forms or has it been referenced in pop culture? What is the importance of this text? I agree with the above feedback that summarizing what some of your sources have to say could provide some unbiased content. Good start overall and good sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwillmer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)