User talk:Jmabo093/sandbox

Prof Garcia's Comments

Well done, Janiela! You are off to a great start. You have a lot of books, which is okay, but you will want to focus more on the articles so that you can get your information quickly and easily. When you post articles, make sure you have the FULL citation (not just the link). Please go back and fill in that information. In the meantime, however, begin writing down your thoughts in your sandbox and make sure that you are keeping detailed notes. You could probably create your own page for Edwin Lemert, actually. If he does not have a page about him, you can create it yourself! If you do two pages, then you can just focus on distributing your time across both of them. I will grade you based on the little bits that you do to both pages. Alfgarciamora (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Alfgarciamora: Sounds like a great idea Professor. I will try to get started on that page as soon as possible. Jmabo093 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Week 6: Excellent work, Janiela. Keep up the great work! Alfgarciamora (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jmabo093: You've done amazing work here, Janiela! Looks like you found an adequate picture to use for the Lemert page, right? I'm so proud of your work - you are really doing an exceptional job. Feel free to finish up moving all your stuff and then just edit it for clarity and so that it reads more like an encyclopedia. Well done! =) Alfgarciamora (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review by Robert

WOW. This page is really well organized! It was so easy to read through your draft and plans for your draft. I have an issue with your lead though. I feel like you could add so much more to your lead, as it seems like you've added a sentence to the lead that is already on the original page. However, it's a great idea to add a section about Edwin Lemert as the page has nothing about him! Not to mention how you even included direct quotes from him about your article. I have a few suggestions. Maybe you could explain the deviant theory so I don't have to go to the wikipedia page to understand it. I think it'll be more efficient and easier to include a sentence or two briefly explaining the deviant theory. Also, I personally don't like the part in the page that states: "(situations we define as real become real in their consequences)". That can be included into a part of a sentence or even made its own sentence. I'm really interested in the other things you have planned for your page overall. Good luck! :) Rroja042 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rroja042: Thank you. I will take all of this into consideration. Also, I'm adding a sentence or two about Edwin Lemert but i'm actually adding an entire article to Wikipedia bout him. that bottom part of my sandbox is for a different Wiki page.Jmabo093 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey Janiela! Just read what you have so far and I'm liking it. It's very well organized, but I've noticed there's a big lack of citations in both sections and one which seems misplaced. I know Prof Garcia recommended to cite as you write to avoid losing track of where to place them, but if you need it to help keep things organized you can also include a "citation needed" superscript that Wikipedia has available. Also if it's fine with you, I could read through again and do some copy editing throughout your draft so far.

The Edwin Lamert section is coming along nicely but it sort of sounds like his theories are being presented like they're factual in some places. I mainly noticed it in the first sentence of the last paragraph. And for the large quotes, I've seen a format on some other pages that make them easier to discern as separate from the rest of the article, and I think it would help the section look even more neat. Wrodr041 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wrodr041: Thanks. Factual in what way? I'm trying to find more on Edwin Lemert since that is a page about him and not just about deviance. Jmabo093 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)