User talk:Amentis16/sandbox

Hey, Sarah! I have added 3 possible topics for articles we could possibly improve on. I have yet to see what sources are out there for them. I have not read them, but I think it would be interesting to learn more about them by doing this assignment. I noticed for Jurassic Park and Mary Poppins there is no section for themes whatsoever. For The Prince and the Pauper, there was a section on themes, but it was about one or two sentences in length. The talk pages for the articles did not mention anything about the pages needing information on themes, which surprised me. Obviously, we need 2 more possible topics and then we can go from there on which 2 are our top choices! I check my email all the time so if you need to reach me by emailing, I will see it and respond asap! Thanks! --Amentis16 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexis! I have added two ideas to your sandbox. The first, is Charlotte's Web, a children's book I am interested in. The wikipedia article seems pretty informative already, but maybe we could find something to add to it. The second idea is the American Girls books. I realized that there are not any wiki pages for these stories, so maybe we could create one if you liked those when you were younger. I like the idea of using a novel. If neither of us have read the novel, maybe we could pick a quick or easy read as we move towards the end of the semester:) Night storms (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the idea of taking on Charlotte's Web if we are able to find sources! There is not a themes section for it so if we are able to find sources we could add that to it! I'll let you pick the 2nd top choice and then tomorrow we can go into the list and include our plan of action for both topics and why we didn't pick the others. I like the idea of doing Charlotte's Web because I have read it before (though it has been a very long time, haha!). :) --Amentis16 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Zoe![edit]

Peer Evaluation and Proposed Changes[edit]

What does the article do well? Is there anything that impressed you?

The use of sources was very thorough and each source was represented. It is clear from reading that the authors are familiar with their references and are trying to represent the sources' ideas well. The formatting for the themes section is clean and organized, as well. The subheadings followed by succinct paragraphs look really good for Wikipedia!

What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I recommend the authors make copy-edits to the article, particularly looking to eliminate repetitive language (like "According to..." two sentences in a row), to keep a neutral tone that strays from making unsupported claims, and to delete typos (such as two spaces following sentences, which can weaken readability). While the use of sources is very thorough, I think the article would benefit from quicker, more brief and succinct explanations of the various expert opinions. It can be challenging to strike a balance between summarizing and representing the full extent of the authors' point of view, and I think this article currently contains slightly more information than might be necessary. At the very least, I think some edits could be made to represent the sources in a more direct, specific way. Similarly, I think that there are some moments in the article that lose their neutral tone for the sake of explaining a source, and some moments have a seemingly-opinionated claim without a citation. For example, under the Innocence section, the statement "Both Wilbur and Fern are... must end" is not referenced, though it sounds like it is expanding on what a source said.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think some copy-edits for brevity (explaining sources quicker, in one's own voice) and a neutral tone would improve the article the most.

I definitely struggle with some of the same things, and I'll have to make a lot of the same edits, for sure! Having great sources can be a blessing for good information, but also difficult when trying to explain them quickly and in a neutral tone for Wikipedia. But, I think it's better to err on the side of having more, rather than less, information to work with, and these edits should come quite easily. Great work! Zfischer97 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake's Peer Review.[edit]

Hey guys!

Before getting into the fine details, I'd like to commend your group's use of clear and logical formatting. That's one aspect that I feel my group could learn from you! Good work!

It seems quite obvious that you know exactly what you're doing, BUT there were a couple small things that I think may help you out: 1. There's a tense shift in the second to last sentence of the second theme. 2. At times it seems that you attempt to use overly elevated language for the article, the lack of consistency tends to make the whole thing read a bit weird. 3. Your references! Don't get me wrong, you have A LOT of great sources, but the way you employ them in the article doesn't feel right, if I were to try pinning one word to the issue I think it'd be: formulaic.

Besides that I really did enjoy your work! Hope I get to read the finished product in the near future! Jake.P.Pitts (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to our article on other articles[edit]

Most of the other articles that are related to "Charlotte's Web" have already linked to the page. However, for the article of the movie Charlotte's Web 2 , I added a part that mentions that the first movie is based on the novel and added the embedded link to the novel's article. I could not find any other article where I could link to the one we are editing. --Amentis16 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]