User talk:Macbookoshea/sandbox

Hello everyone! Welcome to my sandbox. I have gone in and added the original article so that we can easily view and edit the article as a group before publishing it to the actual wiki page. I also went through and added "citation needed" markers to several of the sections that I felt needed actual evidence for the claims that were made.

Peer Review

After reading your section on the Stakhanovite Movement I think you have a good start. It is clear and easy to understand. After reading the lead it seems to be neutral and unbiased. I am not sure if you plan to expand it at all but If you can find a year that it began in your lead section it would help readers early on to determine the time they are about to read about, and talk briefly talk about the sections to come once you add them. Adding a citation to the lead may also be a good idea. Looking at the original article the history section is rather long. I see that you have two sections for edited History, it may be easier to split it up like you have planned. I think the very first sentence in the original History section would be great in the Lead in section because it gives readers a since of when this was happening right off. In the original there is a paragraph that starts by talking about the “opposition to the movement”, I think this may make another section all together instead of just putting it under the History section. The article on a whole seems to need a few more citations as well. Svincen367 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's review

I think this is a very informative and interesting article. I see that someone already added some citation requests, but overall the information provided was unbiased and detailed. I loved that you used the Seventeen Moments in Soviet History site as a source. The lead to the article was just what it should be. It states the simple facts and is interesting enough to make me want to continue to read. Overall I think this is a great start. (Vsquad93 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

Review

To start off I am happy to see the "In Fiction" section, as well as some pictures. Your sources look solid, and your history section is well thought out and has great content. I would suggest put a hyperlink connected to Stakhanovite. Otherwise, your group is on a solid start. Great job! Carr63 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Review by conortleonard

It may be helpful to bring up the first paragraph under History from the actual Stakhanovite Movement article on Wikipedia to the introduction to the topic. This may aid in explaining time details of when and why and where this movement was launched while also giving the details on who Stakhanov was as a model socialist worker. In the introductory paragraph, the article does make mention of him by name, but he is explained of his feats in the first paragraph under History. It may be a good idea to bring that up along with the dates for when this movement began.

Also, I love the little "In fiction" section to explain that there was works of art being done to promote this idea of a Stakhanovite worker. I do also appreciate the fact that each one is explained in a little bit of detail, giving us just enough to understand its significance in the topic at hand - Stakhanovite movement. It is good that it is a little info, but not over done, because a person utilizing Wikipedia has the access to the link provided over the names that can bring them to the article on that movie in order to learn more about it if they wish to do so.

I propose that it may be helpful to create a subsection for famous Stakhanovites. I have noticed that you list some of them out in your history section. It may be a good idea to create a new subsection that mirrors the "In fiction" section in that it can be a bulleted list giving name by name, with a little summary of who that person was, and linking them to their Wikipedia page. That way if they wish to discover more about a given Stakhanovite, they'll be able to access a whole separate Wikipedia page. I like the inclusion of their names in History in order to show that they contributed to the fact that the Stakhanovite movement took over all industries in the USSR and every section of production had their own Stakhanovite. However, you can allude to this without actually going ahead and listing them. Instead a separate heading could be provided, and possibly you can include some photos of famous Stakhanovites. By the way, I do love the inclusions of the photos that you have already. It really ties together the article. My group still has not yet incorporated pictures and it makes our page look plain. I like the two you have so far, but I feel you can include a few more. Possibly a picture of a movie poster, such as Man of Marble as you make mention of.

Your sources check out, all of them being reliable information in that they are historical research based, as well as being reliable websites --- like you use the Moments in Soviet History as we have been doing in class. Also, the article is written in an encyclopedic fashion. I saw nothing to believe that you guys were writing from a slant or had any biases coming out point blank in the text of it all. It all seemed very informative. Pretty much present the facts and let the audience do with them what they will. Conortleonard (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)conortleonard

Another idea for dividing up the article further and getting rid of the gigantic history subsection and splitting it up into more subsections is to include a separate section for the Stakhanovite conventions. I think those were important to this topic in showing that the Party wanted to promote this ideal model worker because it was good for building up socialism, industry and the USSR. Conortleonard (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Conortleonard

Peer Review Edited History Section

This section seems like a good start to something but the grammar needs some review and changes to make it easier to understand. The sentences that were there were a little hard to follow and get a grasp of what was going on. The page overall seems like it is going to flow well and hold a lot of information as long as the sections can all be read and easily followed. Great start though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:10E0:E00:4C3:6AEF:A178:E532 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Tevhid Nazmi Basturk

Hello fellow classmates, first of all I want to say that you are doing a phenomenal job with your group article so far. The article's structure is probably the most advanced of any of our class groups which I have seen, it's fantastic. Your sources look great and very interesting! The article if very well written and interesting to read for certain. My two cents of advice is a bit small. I would just recommend reading over the sentences and trying to avoid repetition of similar words. Shortening some of the longer sentences would also help make it a more concise and follow able read. You guys are doing great, keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevytevtev (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review K Hall

The first thing I can think of when I see this is how clean it all looks. Seriously a great job. Really impressive work. It seems that you all have spent a good amount of time on your article and it looks great. It looks like you took time to adjust and correct things currently there as well. It does look like you still need some bit of work but that still looks good. Overall though outstanding job on this. I would be very proud of my work had I done this. I definitely am taking notes for future work that I may do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotKBall (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)