User talk:Kitkifwiki/sandbox

Hi, Kylie: I'm posting some of our email conversation here, to provide context for the writing which we are doing. Afterwards, there is a new message. Thanks! April 27, Email from Kylie: Hey, so we have to have a finished draft for Monday’s class, and I was wondering how we wanted to split up the work? I know we’re meeting Monday morning, but I don’t think this is enough time to write up a draft. I started an outline and will post it to the Sandbox tonight, (it was doing the same thing to me that you mentioned and deleting my work so I have it on a separate document – I wonder if it’s a problem with the school computers?) but what do you want to do about the actual writing? April 28, Email from Noelle: What if I write about the three articles which I annotated, you write about the three ones which you annotated? We can edit each other's work as we go along. We should finish by Monday. When we meet, we can proofread. Does that seem sensible? April 28, Email from Kylie: Yes, that makes sense. I’ll continue working on synthesizing my sources, then. 688GlRv (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kylie: I just added almost four paragraphs to the sandbox. They are about five hundred words. Maybe you could add more information about Jurca, since you read it. Maybe a couple of sentences would do. Afterwards, maybe we could tie in Watson and Vidal. They are popular sources. They seem relevant to the themes page because they address themes which the scholars address. The themes seem prevalent in both academic and popular sources. Does that seem reasonable? Thanks! 688GlRv (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for those paragraphs. I added a couple more themes and expanded on yours with my own sources. We are definitely good on the 500 words- it's closer to 800 now, actually. I couldn't get to the Watson article, but Vidal is there. KSterli2 00:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the paragraphs, and for adding some citations this morning. However, I think that we need exact page numbers. The page ranges are for the bibliography which comes after the citations. Would you please help me to find specific page numbers for the articles which you read? I found the articles and read them. However, I am not sure which page numbers you would like to reference, as several might work. Maybe we should ask the professor if we should reference all of them. 688GlRv (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll get the exact pages from mine. KSterli2 21:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So, looking over other articles and the peer reviews, I think we need to focus on rewriting the Themes section to make sure that it sounds as much like an encyclopedia entry as possible, minimizing our direct references to certain authors as well as the possibility of original research slipping in. Citations still need some work, of course; I also think that there are a lot of citations in the racism section that could be cut/combined- it's a lot of sentences from the author one right after the other instead of a summary of his ideas. Lastly, we should find another source or the places in our current sources that discuss Burroughs personally to support the Background section. KSterli2 21:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

Dear Kylie,

I do not understand the edits which you added to the page yesterday.  I think that I might try to talk with Professor Schuette.

In general, I think that the tone in which you write might be better if it were more formal.  The sentences might be more direct if they included fewer dependent clauses and commas.

Professor Schuette and Shalor said that referencing the authors by name is not too academic.

Thanks. 688GlRv (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry! I just meant that what we had written so far didn't strike me as the way most Wikipedia articles are written, and I want to make sure that what we write doesn't sound like an essay or original research or something Wikipedia doesn't like- so I guess I'm being a little wary! :P Yes, I agree that more formal is better, and if our style is acceptable, great. Does that clear it up? KSterli2 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

Many Wikipedia articles are not written according to Wikipedia guidelines.  Let's reference the authors by name in order to avoid sounding as if we are writing original research, avoid general claims (such as, "Another consistent theme in scholarly criticism is that of civilization," and "Tarzan’s representation in Western and American culture has often been examined in light of, from a modern perspective, racist themes" unless we can back them up with several examples), and try to write directly/specifically.  Wikipedia articles seem to be clear, ideally.  Maybe we should prioritize clarity. Thanks! 688GlRv (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kylie. Please see the bottom of the page for comments on drafting. 688GlRv (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kylie. The Themes section is entirely edited, except for the Escapism subheading. I do not know what you intend for that section because you have the Vidal article. The Themes section consists of roughly 870 words, without a background section and without the Escapism section. Please tell me what you think would make sense to try to do next. I included three links to Wikipedia articles in the themes section. 688GlRv (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kylie.  I'm under the impression that the article should be in its final form now.  Given that the Background section depends heavily on only one source, should we delete that?  Given that we are at 870 words, should we delete the Escapism section?  Would you like to continue working on clarifying and adding references to the Escapism section?  The next assignment is to move the article to the actual Wikipedia article.  One of us needs to do it.  Would you prefer to do it since you appear to have added fewer characters to the draft than I did (see the Students page).  What would you like?  Thanks, Noelle. 688GlRv (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, looks good. The page was acting weird for me last night and deleting things or not posting them (my computer was having issues, turned out) but I just edited the Background and Escapism sections, and found a new source for them. I'd like to go over it a little more just to be sure, but then I can move it to the proper article. We have to try linking a couple other pages to this one in addition to adding links here; I found one page (on feral children in fiction) that mentions Tarzan already, but we could probably slip Tarzan of the Apes in, too. I haven't come up with anything else, though. Have you found any pages that could relate? KSterli2 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is posted on the main page! The lead has also been updated, and the Adaptations section is under a new heading. Any thoughts on last things to add? I threw some under a heading on the user page. KSterli2 01:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

Thanks! I added citations to the Background section, rewrote sentences to sound more direct, explained a quote in the Escapism section, corrected citations in the Sexuality section, reworded (i.e. literary scholars, not critics), and proofread. 688GlRv (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Afternoon of May 5, email: I will post to our sandbox material for the article talk page tomorrow. I did edit today. 688GlRv (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I just added a draft for the Talk Page Assignment. Please edit and tell me what you think. Thank you. 688GlRv (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I might be unavailable tomorrow morning, when we need to submit the Talk Page Assignment by adding it to the Tarzan of the Apes Talk Page (due to a lengthy medical appointment). Would you mind adding it? Tonight, I will try to read anything that you write for the draft. I will try to read tomorrow morning. Maybe I could edit, too. Please tell me what you think would be appropriate. Thank you very much. 688GlRv (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I’m looking over it and making comments now; if you can respond to those sometime tonight, I’ll edit the draft accordingly tomorrow morning and post it to the article talk page. I’ll email you when I do, and you can feel free to go over it again, but don’t feel that you have to. Good luck at your appointment! KSterli2 23:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

I noticed that the DOI under all but one of the Berglund citations actually directed me to "Lord Greystoke and Darkest Africa." I fixed that, and then used said source to add to the Racism section. I also clarified some things under Escapism. KSterli2 23:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

I went back to the page and a template for "citations needed" had appeared; I edited this to account for material that wasn't strictly from the author (deleted explanation of quote in Escapism) and rearranged some words (Burroughs acknowledged... and its conflict with the environment), and deleted the template. KSterli2 14:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

From Kitkifwiki: I have edited and posted. I admit I was still confused by that last sentence… I hope I did your thoughts and mine justice. 688GlRv (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I read through for grammar and tried to clarify the confusing sentence which I wrote earlier. 688GlRv (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Leilah's Peer Review

Format/genre: I think your format was fairly well done if anything just make your subheadings a little more noticeable should help out with it all kind of blending together. You had more than enough citations but you do rely heavily on one source so be careful about that as it leaves the question of perspective.

Prose: There were several slight errors but nothing overly important things that would be easily caught when you finish and read back through it before submitting. You both manage to maintain a neutral tone throughout the article and there was no clear distinction between who wrote what.

Notability: You used 8 different sources which was more than enough and they were all academic sources which helped aid in the scholarly discussion of the article and didn't leave room to question compared to a blog post. I do think that your background under rough draft does need some work and quotations as it was lacking.

Verifiability: While you do use plenty of sources and don't seem to be plagiarizing I do think that you are relying too heavily on the one source. No filler which was great.

1. You both do a great job maintaining your neutral tone as well as being engaging and synthesizing well. 2.Mostly just tidy up any minor errors and the formatting as a whole. 3. Formatting Lhovey2 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Jesse's Peer Review

Format/Genre: Overall, there is a lot of good information that is well written to fit the Wikipedia "genre". However, I'm not entirely sure about the citations that were used. Some appear to be page numbers but without an edition of the book listed those won't be accurate or helpful for a reader. I also think that subheadings could be utilized to break up the draft, right now it's a very daunting block of text. While you use a lot of sources throughout, I think the first body paragraph could use a second author to reinforce the ideas.

Prose: You both did a good job using neutral prose in the article. However I didn't pick up on any counter arguments. It might be that there aren't any and that overall critics have reached a consensus. If this is so, I would clarify that in your article. I did think that the prose was very direct and steered clear from "fluff" writing which I appreciated :)

Notability: You used several sources, all of which seemed good and relevant!

Verifiability: The sources seem well synthesized. I would double check to make sure you aren't making connections between authors that stretch too far into original research, but overall I thought it was well done. You definitely have some stronger points (heredity and civilization) while the Coughlan article you reference and the escapism piece could use another source or two to support what you are arguing (a lot is supported by only 1-2 sources in those sections). Overall this is a very significant draft, I'm very impressed!

Rubric Questions: 1. The article does a good job synthesizing several sources and summarizing them without going plagiarizing. I was especially impressed with how you incorporated the authors names into your prose so naturally. 2. I would make two changes. One, adding subheadings to help the article seem less daunting. Two, add counterarguments or second sources to each of your theme points. This would help them seem more solidly supported by critics and less like a singular opinion. 3. Most importantly, make sure that the connections you draw are supported by the research and are not your own opinion of the article or the scholarly conversation. 4. I have definitely been struggling on how to incorporate the criticism into my work and reading your article helped me better understand how to do it

--Jessehersh (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Drafting Comments

Below are my comments on drafting current at 3:40 PM on May 1. These are reasons for the edits which I am making to the drafting on the user page of the sandbox. Please tell me if anything does not seem cogent.

Drafting

Background and Influences Burroughs was influenced by a varied life and multiple careers, none of which lasted. He drifted until he was thirty-six (what does this mean?), served in the U.S. cavalry, and mined gold in Oregon. He was a cowboy in Idaho, a railroad policeman in Salt Lake City, and an entrepreneur who never quite succeeded in several attempts at opening a business ("quite" sounds informal and indirect. Where are the citations?). An avid reader, he eventually turned to pulp fiction for new material but was greatly disappointed by what it offered; he decided to write his own instead. Influenced by ancient myths like the Aeneid and Romulus and Remus, and possibly the Jungle Book, his own imagination was nonetheless the greatest source (that sounds like a general claim and the language seems unprofessional because of the run-on quality of the sentence and the use of the verb "was" when another could illustrate the meaning more precisely), many of the stories that he told he had told to himself just before he went to sleep, and he never visited Africa (run-on, lots of information. As a reader, I wonder: how do all these pieces of information fit together?). Tarzan first appeared in the All-Story magazine, which ran the entire length of the story and took up most of the magazine. Two years later, Tarzan was reprinted as a novel, and was reprinted multiple times in later years due to popularity. (This entire section would need citations after just about every sentence, probably.)

Themes

Heredity Recent literary criticism often focuses on the identity of the eponymous protagonist of Tarzan of the Apes.  Literary critics, such as Mikko Tuhkanen, J. Michelle Coughlan, Bijana Oklopčić, and Catherine Jurca often examine the themes of Tarzan’s humanity, sexuality, race, and social behavior. Heredity plays an important role in Tarzan, and Burroughs even said in Writer’s Digest, “I was mainly interested in playing with the idea of a contest between heredity and environment. For this purpose I selected an infant child of a race strongly marked by hereditary characteristics of the finer and nobler sort, and at an age at which he could not have been influenced by association with creatures of his own kind I threw him into an environment as diametrically opposite that to which he had been born as I might well conceive”. The critic Jeff Burglund notices that although Tarzan was brought up in the jungle far from other humans, he is inexplicably drawn back to his parents’ cabin and the objects which he finds there. He discovers a capacity for gentlemanly behavior around Jane despite no one teaching it to him. Never having had a problem with eating enemy apes before, he is suddenly overcome with revulsion when he considers eating one of the African men he kills and refuses to do so; Burroughs wrote, “thus hereditary instinct” prevented him from cannibalism. Berglund claims that Tarzan inherits his instinct, and his actions are conditioned by his and genetic association with Anglo-civilization. (This section seems disorganized because several literary critics and themes are mentioned at the top, and only Tarzan and Berglund at the bottom. Informal language and a lengthy quotation exist. As a section, it's incoherent. As a paragraph, the second paragraph seems incoherent: not enough summary.)

Civilization Another consistent theme in scholarly criticism is that of civilization (we mention only one author here; we can't say "consistent" unless we cite more), and the contrast between Tarzan’s upbringing and the civilized ideas introduced to him later (introduced by what? How does this relate to the story? These are questions that an unfamiliar reader might ask.). A focus on Tarzan’s ability to read and write, which sets him apart from the apes, the African villagers, and the lower-class sailors in the novel, leads to Tarzan recognizing himself as a human for the first time, and moreover as a man who is superior to others unlike himself; Jeff Berglund argued that this supported the idea within the novel that whiteness and literacy were naturally related to civilization, and to Tarzan’s growth into a perfectly civilized person. (Abrupt and unclear jump to Tukhanen.) However, the apparently civilized qualities of Tarzan, such as his interest in reading, threaten his survival as a human in the jungle according to Mikko Tuhkanen, who claims that Tarzan represents the fluidity of the definition of humanity. For Tukhanen, “[T]he human and the nonhuman become grotesquely indistinguishable” in the novel.  Humans mistake apes for other humans , an ape tries to rape Jane, Tarzan finds a surrogate ape mother when he cries out like an ape (35), and he must act against his human instincts by jumping into a dangerous body of water in order to survive an attack from a lion. Because civilization seems to threaten human survival in Tarzan of the Apes, Tuhkanen claims that humans must contradict the expectations of civilization regarding the characteristics of humans (43).  For Tukhanen, the novel exemplifies “queer ethics,” encouraging “perverse sexuality” along with other behaviors which Western civilization often discouraged

Racism Tarzan’s representation in Western and American culture has often (again, we can't make a claim unless we reference) been examined in light of, from a modern perspective, racist themes. Bijana Oklopčić emphasizes the portrayal of race in Tarzan of the Apes.  He claims that Tarzan represents white, male opposition to the “black rapist” stereotype which was prevalent in the Southern U.S. at the time of its publication because the language which describes apes parallels propaganda against people of African descent. Catherine Jurca also analyzes Tarzan in opposition to people of other races and classes. Jurca looks at how Tarzan defends his corner of civilization, his parents’ home, from the ‘savages’ who want to despoil it, reflecting an early twentieth-century American attitude; as darker-skinned immigrants flooded the country, especially urban areas, white Americans feared that their culture would be destroyed by newcomers who did not understand or care about it, and tried to protect the suburbs in the same way as Tarzan.

Escapism (I don't think queer theory fits under the caption of escapism) The theme of escapism also appears in Tarzan, as Burroughs wrote stories that he told himself in order to get away from the real world to a more exciting place: given an unsatisfactory reality, “he consoled himself with an inner world where he was strong and handsome, adored by beautiful women and worshipped by exotic races”. Tarzan also appeals to a society which has found itself in an undesirable position and appeals to audiences as a powerful means of escaping it: Gore Vidal discusses a general sense of boredom and frustration in society, a desire to dominate the environment that stifled one; Catherine Jurca’s exploration of the American citizen’s desire to reconquer their perceived lost home has a similar ring; in both cases, Tarzan represented an adventurous figure that allowed the public to imagine a jungle of their own to rule. J. Michelle Coughlan argues that Tarzan displays behavior which seems outside of the bounds of traditional manhood in her article “’Absolutely Punk’: Queer Economies of Desire in Tarzan of the Apes.”  Coughlan analyzes Burroughs’ fans complaints regarding the “punk ending” in order to prove that contemporary readers understood Tarzan’s renunciation of Jane as unmanly.  Later, he rescues Paul D’Arnot from Africans, similarly to how he rescued Jane from rape: many of the same phrases and words describe both adventures (185-86).  D’Arnot later supports the reluctant Tarzan financially, similarly to how Jane dreads marrying for money (188-89).  Coughlan suggests that the novel bends traditional Western gender roles; therefore, Tarzan unconsciously could feel homosexual desire for D’Arnot despite his apparent attraction for Jane, and D’Arnot could be treating Tarzan as a “kept m[a]n,” or paid sexual partner (186). 688GlRv (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page Assignment Draft

Suggestions for Further Improving the Article

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Novels, character sections could benefit from brief summaries of each character, especially if the plot section does not cover the personalities or roles of all of the characters. A more comprehensive character section could improve the quality of the Tarzan of the Apes article.

We were wondering if an “African Animals” section is necessary. If it remains, readers might like explanations of the roles which the animals play in the story.

A Style section might benefit from biographies of Burroughs and histories of mainstream fiction during the early twentieth century in America. The following is a list of sources which our group used. A future editor probably would want to expand beyond these sources, especially in the history area.

Fenton, Robert W. (1967). The Big Swingers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hart, James David (1950). The Popular Book: A History of America's Literary Taste. University of California Press.

Lupoff, Richard A. (2005). Master of Adventure: The Worlds of Edgar Rice Burroughs. University of Nebraska Press.

Taliaferro, John (1999). Tarzan Forever. New York, NY: Scribner.

The following source might list other sources which could provide historical, literary context:

Perkins, George B. (2002). HarperCollins Reader’s Encyclopedia of American Literature. New York: HarperResource.

The Background section which we began might benefit from summary of the process of the publication of Tarzan of the Apes. The magazine publisher’s expectations, the amount that it paid Burroughs, and the process through which Tarzan of the Apes was published in the form of a novel might be helpful. Perhaps knowing about the reaction of Burroughs’ wife and children to the story before it was published could be helpful.

The copyright issues which Burroughs experienced might explain publishing history topics, such as which publishers published the story.

Reviews from old newspapers might be useful for reception history. Sometimes, sources on Burroughs generalize about reception. Many claim that the story was extremely popular without referencing reviews of it. We would look for specific reviews, sales statistics, and advertisements for the story.

The Adaptations section might benefit from reviews.

The Process of Writing the Article

The group interpreted Wikipedia guidelines regarding scholarly language differently. One member leaned towards not referencing sources directly. She thought that this would help us to avoid argumentative language and original research. The other member leaned towards referencing sources in order to avoid plagiarism and to alert readers that we were not writing original research. We tried to mention the names of the sources in order to clarify language, and to avoid mentioning the names when that would seem repetitive.

One group member preferred short sentences. She thought that they conveyed ideas directly. The other member thought that short sentences did not seem like summary. She thought that they were unnecessary, and wrote longer sentences with several independent clauses and semicolons. We tried to give each other room to write according to individual styles; however, we simultaneously communicated about sentences which we found confusing. Because we communicated, the editing process happened without conflict. Rather than experiencing conflict, we understood the editing process on Wikipedia thoroughly because we asked questions, wrote individually, and edited each others’ writing.

One group member tried to write in the way in which many Wikipedia articles seem to articulate information. The other tried to write based on specific guidelines. We found flexibility in writing based on the guidelines. Different styles exist on Wikipedia because each editor thinks differently from others. Because we simultaneously tried to follow guidelines and to respect our individual interpretations of the guidelines, we accepted the ability of writing an article to form our minds through following guidelines, and the ability of writing an article to form Wikipedia through our individual expressions of information.

We thank each other for writing, and for reading each other’s writing. We thank Aschuet1 for the instruction in and outside of classes. We thank our peers, Lhovey2 and Jessehersh, for reviewing the first draft. We thank Wikipedia for the opportunity to learn about writing an online encyclopedia. 688GlRv (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Very nice draft. My comments:

• Actually, I think that the "African Animals" section is a good addition, linking to more information on some of the animals in the novel, though- as with the other characters- a summary of their roles would be useful.
• I'm not sure that a Style section would require information from biographies, since it's about the way that the author writes, information unlikely to be found there as opposed to reviews and scholarly sources- although historical information on writing habits of the era might connect, this also seems to stretch somewhat from covering Burroughs's voice on the page; nonetheless, a Style section would be a welcome addition.
• Copyright issues?
• Lastly, "The other member thought that short sentences did not seem like summary..." is more accurately, "The other member preferred longer sentences that tied ideas together, which she thought helped to summarize." There are a few other things I might edit, such as "The magazine publisher’s expectations, the process through which Tarzan of the Apes was published in the form of a novel, or the payment Burroughs received for his story might be included. Perhaps knowing about the reaction of Burroughs’ wife and children to the story before it was published would be helpful." Also, "...we accepted the ability of writing an article to form..." confuses me a little. "...we were able to write an article that conformed to our individual styles as well as Wikipedia's guidelines" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

• What about, "If the African animals play significant roles in the story, perhaps future editors could write summaries of these roles."
• The biographies of Burroughs which I reference examine the style in which he wrote. They link the style to popularity and to the styles of other writers of the era. Reviews of Burroughs' writing and scholarly sources might also be helpful. However, the reviews and sources which I saw seem to analyze themes more than style. Perhaps you could include some sources in the draft if you found any.
• Maybe we could talk about "copyright," not "copyright issues." Burroughs did sell copyrights, which seems significant in the formation of Tarzan movies based on the story.
• 1. Please describe your position on the sentence length disagreement or any other discussion which we had.
• 2. I do not understand why you would edit the advice on the Background section because it seems significant in the transition of the story from private to published. If you edit it, would you please clarify confusing language or add your own ideas, rather than remove it?
• 3. The sentence, "Because . . . we accepted the ability of writing an article to form our minds through following guidelines, and the ability of writing an article to form Wikipedia through our individual expressions of information" perhaps could change to, "We simultaneously tried to follow guidelines and to respect our individual interpretations of the guidelines. The flexibility of the guidelines allowed us to write an article which expresses each of our individual expressions of information. Because we accepted the flexible guidelines, they formed our writing. Our acceptance of the system and of our individual writing voices allowed us to participate in forming Wikipedia and to be formed by it." 688GlRv (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so:

• Is it alright if I just skip that, and let the animals' summaries be implied in the first point about character summaries? They are in the character list on the main page already. The section seems short but it's a useful collection of links. Or, if you really think that it's unnecessary, I could suggest folding said links into character descriptions for the animals and then cutting the list of animals when it has been made redundant, should someone create character summaries.
• That makes sense about the biographies.
• You basically covered my angle, it was mostly that I wanted to reword my position on sentence length, as I did in my above comments.
• Ah, so more about selling copyright and profiting off of it than him having problems with copyright.
• Oops, sorry. I suggested a change because of the repeated 'helpful' and shifted the monetary addition to the end of the list because I was thinking about money that he would have made in total from Tarzan, both the magazine and book editions, instead of just from the magazine. (Which, being pulp fiction, I believe Burroughs would have been paid by the word, or something.) The publication history already has a link on the page, actually- one of the sources that I initially found, the ERB magazine.
• I will do my best with this sentence.

KSterli2 05:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)

Edited Talk Page Assignment

This is my edited version, which I am also posting to the main article page.

Suggestions for Further Improving the Article

• According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Novels, character sections could benefit from brief summaries of each character, especially if the plot section does not cover the personalities or roles of all of the characters. A more comprehensive character section could improve the quality of the Tarzan of the Apes article. In addition, if the links currently under “African Animals” are included in the descriptions for those characters, the “Animals” section would be redundant and could be deleted.
• A Style section might benefit from information in the following biographies on Burroughs, and possibly from histories of mainstream fiction during the early twentieth century in America.

Fenton, Robert W. (1967). The Big Swingers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hart, James David (1950). The Popular Book: A History of America's Literary Taste. University of California Press.

Lupoff, Richard A. (2005). Master of Adventure: The Worlds of Edgar Rice Burroughs. University of Nebraska Press.

Taliaferro, John (1999). Tarzan Forever. New York, NY: Scribner.

The following source might list other sources which could provide historical, literary context: Perkins, George B. (2002). HarperCollins Reader’s Encyclopedia of American Literature. New York: HarperResource.

A future editor probably would want to expand beyond these sources, especially in the history area.

• The Background section which we began could use more details. Things such as the magazine publisher’s expectations, the amount that it paid Burroughs, and the process through which Tarzan of the Apes was published in the form of a novel might be included. Perhaps knowing about the reaction of Burroughs’ wife and children to the story before it was published would be helpful.

This link covers the history of publication in novel form. (link to ERBzine which is on the main page)

• Burroughs’ use of copyright, sales from Tarzan and related projects, and the growth of Tarzan across multiple medias could improve the Adaptations section.
• A Reception section would be an excellent addition. Sometimes, sources on Burroughs generalize about reception; many claim that the story was extremely popular without referencing reviews of it. Newspapers, specific reviews, sales statistics, or advertisements for the story would all be useful for writing this. The Adaptations section might also benefit from reviews.

The Process of Writing the Article

The group interpreted Wikipedia guidelines regarding scholarly language differently. One member leaned towards not referencing sources directly; she thought that this would help us to avoid argumentative language and original research. The other member leaned towards referencing sources in order to avoid plagiarism and to alert readers that we were not writing original research. We tried to mention the names of the sources in order to clarify language, and to avoid mentioning the names when that would seem repetitive.

One group member preferred short sentences. She thought that they conveyed ideas directly. The other member preferred longer sentences that tied ideas together, which she thought helped to summarize. We tried to give each other room to write according to individual styles; however, we simultaneously communicated about sentences which we found confusing. Because we communicated, the editing process happened without conflict. Rather than experiencing conflict, we understood the editing process on Wikipedia thoroughly because we asked questions, wrote individually, and edited each others’ writing.

One group member tried to write in the way in which many Wikipedia articles seem to articulate information. The other tried to write based on specific guidelines. We found flexibility in writing based on the guidelines. Different styles exist on Wikipedia because each editor thinks differently; because the guidelines are flexible and we respected our individual interpretations, we were able to write an article that conformed to both our styles and Wikipedia’s directions. Our participation in writing this article allowed us not only to form part of Wikipedia, but to learn things for ourselves as well.

We thank each other for writing, and for reading each other’s writing. Thank you to Aschuet1 for instruction in and outside of classes. We thank our peers, Lhovey2 and Jessehersh, for reviewing the first draft. And thank you to Wikipedia for the opportunity to learn about writing an online encyclopedia.