Jump to content

User:GAJH123/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Review of Milk and Honey (Poetry Collection)

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

The lead in this article was short and to the point, however the sentence that defines "instapoets" is awkward and not tied to or relevant anything in that section. I would recommend removing that sentence and the mention of her "large following on social media" as it is discussed later in the article under the "reception" heading.

Structure/Balance

[edit]

The structure and balance of the article is decent but could use improvement. The explanation of the four themed chapters needs to be expanded, as more detail is needed to give a better summary of each chapter's contents. More information needs to be said about the style of the book as well.

Neutral Content

[edit]

The section about reception mentions her being an "instapoet" again but does not give further information or detail. When talking about the book's "praise" and good reviews, I would recommend finding a more credible source or one that has a better reputation.

Sources

[edit]

The sources need major improvement and change. Source #6 is missing a link and an article title. Source #7 is a promotional website which should not be used. Source #8 is a questionable source because it does not present all its information in a neutral way. Source #9 does not belong as a source for any Wikipedia article. It is a gossip article that is not reliable in an way. Source #10 is biased, filled with opinions, and statements that cannot be proven to be factual. Source #11 is dead link that needs to be removed and replaced with the correct link.

  • User:GAJH123, this article was written for my Wikipedia class last year. Isn't that funny? Since then someone came by and messed it up a little. You were right about a couple of things, like your comment about source 6 (now gone) and source 7 (also gone). You're not right about a few others--source 8 is impeccable, and I don't understand what the problem is. 9 is less than ideal, but it's not terrible. But source 10 also is perfectly acceptable; please don't be so hasty with "bias". As for Instapoetry, as it turns out we have an article, and I added the link. Thanks. Dr Aaij (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)