User talk:BenTelerski/sandbox
Zach's Evaluation
[edit]Ben did a very good job on citing his sources and crediting the evidence with the person or group who wrote the claim. Ben changes the lead section and writes a well written synopsis of the story. I like how the background section is written due to the fact that it shows why the book was made and how they wanted to make it for young children so they could understand the message clearly. Were you able to find positive remarks about the story and message. I noticed a lot of criticism and also parents wanting the book out of the children's literature section. But, I believe adding some positive critics would make the article more balanced and not bias. Are there any changes to sentence structure because of the awkwardness?
Proposed Additions and Changes to the Article
[edit]I think you did a great job in ensuring the article is well written and informative, while still maintaining an unbiased and detached voice. It also seems like you added some important information in the background and response sections that is well sourced and helps the reader get a better idea of the book. The best part of your contribution is that it seems to flow really well in the article, which is a difficult thing to do when you are just altering or adding certain pieces of information. If i could make one suggestion, it would be to bulk up the publication history section that you created. Right now it just seems to be that if the section is going to consist of that little, then the information should just be mentioned somewhere else. If other information about publication is in another section of the article, I would recommend restructuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabro (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Response to Feedback
[edit]On the article's talk page, an editor who focuses on children's literature wrote a message to me welcoming me to the page and offering their help. After I posted on the talk page describing my proposed revisions, they responded that my ideas for revision looked good. My peers said that my proposed revisions looked good. They suggested improving flow and clarity within the original article, which I am planning on doing in the coming week, as well as adding more content to the publication history section. The information I included answers all of the questions Wikipedia suggests for a publication section and the section is currently missing from the article, so the article could be improved through its inclusion. To revise my content, I am planning on adding sections of the current article to my sandbox to make revisions in order to clarify where my additions and revisions will fit into the current article. --BenTelerski (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)