User talk:Melanie1013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

...what is this doing?


Everything looks in order... Pmedward (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindsayk19 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)hi

Rasta cahe 71 peer review

This Wikipedia page has a lot of strengths. The outline of Tamara Rojo was outstanding. I like the way you presented this page by giving us general information about her first, and then going from her early life to her adulthood, then showing her whole career. Other strengths were including her awards, recognitions, and lists of ballets and roles performed. It was very exceptional. There were not many weaknesses on this Wikipedia page. There was just a typo in the “a Major Injury” section of the Wikipedia page where in the second sentence you spelled hospital wrong.

One suggestion is that you can post more pictures of Tamara Rojo to your wiki page.  I see  other Wikipedia pages that have multiple pictures and it makes their page look better.  This is a great Wikipedia page and it is very accurate and I am looking forward to looking at the finished product.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasta cahe 71 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Tamara Rojo

Before I delve deeper into Miss Rojo, there is already an existing page on Wikipedia, although it's a very short one and hasn’t been updated since early November ( It would be very simple to integrate your work with this article stub and continue working from there, although I’ll also add that your photo choice is much better!

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

You did a fantastic job with writing style; the structure flows very logically agreeably with very few mistakes. (Check “she started shaking on shaking on stage” in the last textual section.) With regard to the “Awards & Recognitions” section, make sure your style remains more or less consistent throughout. (This is minute, but check hyphen use.)

I love the occasional direct quotations from various sources such as newspapers and other online articles—they give the page an almost journalistic style, and I like it! This is the perfect mix of detail and brevity to produce a very efficient use of text.

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

It seems as though many key periods (and, with respect to her injury, key events) in her life are touched upon at least briefly, which is fantastic. This is a very thorough timeline of her progress both leading up to and throughout her career.

I’m assuming that the average user would want to access this page to find out more information regarding her role as a ballerina, which leads me to my next point. See the following URL suggestions in case you’re in need of further material sources!

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

Other possible places to look might include The Ballerina Gallery (, two Ballet Magazine interviews ( and, and information from her own website ( This last link has a fantastic collection of information to work with beyond just interviews: Check the galleries, performances, and even reviews for more substance to work with while you add to your (already great) page.

I really love the idea of presenting a section of reviews and critical reception. This might be a bit controversial (which might, if not approached cautiously, bring into question the neutrality aspect of Wikipedia pages if you already feel strongly in favor of Miss Rojo), but it would also offer an interesting additional perspective rather than a biographical anthology.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

After looking through your current sections, I don’t think there will be an opportunity to show any partiality or bias in Miss Rojo’s case—this will mostly be a question of facts and citations of the references used to state those facts. No controversy needed, thank goodness! (And to verify that sentence I did a quick search to see if there have been any questionable events in her career or her past in general and found nothing. You’re safe!)

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

The conciseness of the information presented in the “Awards & Recognitions” category is fantastic—it’s very easy for users to scan through to find the information they need to know. Have you considered doing the same for the section “List of ballets performed/Roles performed”? Because so much of the body of this section is list-like in grammatical structure, it might be a good idea to format it as a list using asterisks as bullets (in Wikipedia markup language).

It is also possible to force your Table of Contents to appear at a certain point in your page rather than leaving it to default settings; in your case, it might help to add two underscores, TOC, and another two underscores (see Wikipedia’s cheatsheet ( for more information) immediately under your section called “Tamara Rojo” and immediately before “Early Life”. If you check other Wikipedia pages, they typically feature an introductory paragraph before displaying a Table of Contents and moving into the substance of the page. This would also allow your beautiful image choice to be displayed higher up on the screen.

On one last note, I can see that you have a whole stockade of references to use, which is fantastic! A good idea might be to distribute those sources and the information they provided you throughout the page. When typing, you can pause after a period and click the “Cite” tab while in the “Edit” screen to easily cite a journal, webpage, book, etc. without getting too caught up in Wikipedia markup language. This inserts a superscript number, which the user can click to redirect them to the source at the bottom of the page. Because so much of your page relies on facts, it’s important to reassure the user (and the Wikipedia administrators!) that your content is reliable and verifiable.

Again, fantastic job! I can’t wait to see this page’s progress throughout the next month. My roommate is an aspiring ballerina, so we both have an invested interest!

Jbodford (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments that follow the structure we talked about in class:

Well-written: The text presented in the page at this point has been articulated very nicely and allows for smooth transition into each of the succeeding subheadings. In addition, the blend of supplemental text with factual information helps keep the reader engaged opposed to skimming through without understanding the topic or getting caught up in every single thought. Here are two sentences that I found in the last section ('A Major Injury') that may have been overlooked;

“In 2002 while dancing as Clara in the Nutcracker she started shaking on shaking on stage.”

“Months later she was back to dancing and says that this life changing injury that changed her perspective on life, her body and dance” (did you forget to finish this sentence maybe?)

Comprehensive: The list of subheadings appears to encompass all of the major bits of information that would be necessary for this page. The detailed progression of the subheadings (and information within those headings) flows logical starting with early life and progressing to career accomplishments. In addition, the subheadings manage to capture all of the major events (i.e. performances, awards, etc) that are pertinent to this wikipedia entry. Very nice job of integrating this information into your article so nicely.

Well-researched: The list of sources for the page is rather extensive and the quality of the sources is clearly reflective in the detailed information provided in the page. In addition, the information retrieved at this point is very extensive and will certainly prove helpful for your page. Going forward, I would suggest trying to focus on certain aspects of the page (in terms of more in-depth) research. For example, maybe you could try to find additional information about some of the specific roles she played (elaborating on the subheading titled 'list of ballets performed/roles performed'). Perhaps this section could be portrayed with a table that addresses some key pieces of information about her role in that particular play that had a significant or positive effect. Of course, there are several routes that your group can take going forward and I think that the information already presented (and the logical flow) will prove to be a solid foundation.

  • In doing a simple Google search (by typing in the following text; Tamara Rojo - Dowell Swan Lake), I was able to find a site ( that might have some information for the section covering Tamara's performances. As I mentioned earlier, this section could maybe expand to take the shape of a performance/review section that evaluates her performances from both sides (i.e. by pointing out some positives and negatives). After visiting the site above, look in the 'reviews' subheading that is found under the 'performances' section. This information could be displayed in a table with phrases or brief sentences that offers supplemental information to the performances you have already mentioned within the page.

Neutral: I do not foresee this being issue due to the topic your group has chosen due to the type of information being presented. One suggestion might be to try to find some reviews of her performances. If this information is not available, the layout of your page will still be neutral and effectively satisfy this criteria.

Formatted appropriately: The general layout of the page appears to be in alignment with the wikipedia guidelines. I did notice that many wikipedia pages that are based on the life/career highlights of people tend to have a rectangular box on the right hand corner (where the picture is located on your page). This box provides general demographic information along with additional facts depending on the motivation of the page and most likely what information is available to those updating the page. Here is a wikipedia page of George Washington that demonstrates this if you wanted to dig a little deeper into the actual code of what this looks like.

Overall comments/suggestions: All in all, I am always eager to learn about ideas/concepts/people that I do not know too much information about. Therefore, I appreciate this wikipedia page and applaud you on the amount of substantive information your group as added in expanding the current Wikistub. One last suggestion be to make sure that each subheading sufficiently adds additional information that has not already been mentioned before (your group has done a great job with this). Expanding on this suggestion, try to incorporate some tables/more visually appealing methods of relaying information that might be particularly valuable under the list of performances section. Once again, the depth of information presented at this point is a great start and should be very helpful for the final page. --HeelFan2445 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Review for peer editing assignment[edit]

Well-written - I feel that this topic and discussion is very well written and flows nicely throughout the Wiki page. The understand is very basic and comprehending for all audiences and readers which is good for a specific topic people may not know much about. I felt like the punctuation and grammar was all correct and the sentences ran smoothly. There was a little confusion for me when I was reading the section "A Major Injury." I felt like in that section there was some wordiness and fragment sentences that need to be re-looked at.

Comprehensive - Great job in setting out the sections of your article and separating into paragraphs. It runs very smoothly and you can easily tell what you are reading about due to the topic at the top of each section. This work looks very professional and put together.

Well researched - It seems like you have found a lot of research and articles that are helping you with your topic. I would make sure you aren't finding too many sources that are almost the same. To me sometimes that can vary and mess up the research due to different sources. I think you have a great start to all the sections but I feel it would be good to extend and show research within the Wiki page.

Formatted Appropriately - It looks very professional and set up according to Wikipedia standard to me. I think it is important to always have it in chronological order, and I feel like you are in the process of doing that.

Overall comments and suggestions - I think you have a great topic that many people do not know about. My main change of the page would be to further extend the sections. Tell me what is going on how after the injury and how created this passion. Great job and I look forward to seeing the final product!

- Johnstc Johnstc (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Review for peer editing assignment

Well-written: I think that this Wikipedia page is extremely well written. It is very easy to read and understand. The wording is proper and professional. It is written in a style that is similar to already existing Wikipedia pages.

Comprehensive: The page was easy to understand. It was well organized and showed logical progression. The table of contents at the top of the page helps the reader to search faster and summarize the information.

Well-researched: From the amount of information that is already present on the page in its early development, it is clear that the topic is well researched. Also, the amount of sources that are posted will help to prove its accuracy.

Neutral: I think that this Wikipedia page does a good job of being neutral. After reading the page in its entirety it remains unbiased.

Formatted appropriated: I think that it follows Wikipedia format and guidelines. I like how the page is set up and its logical progression. However, I think that the Major Injury section at the bottom of the page is some what random. I would consider adding it into the career section and doing away with the other.

Leviburt (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Consider the line between Early Life and Adulthood. I think a single biographical category would be sufficient, unless you want to divide her life stages up into sections. You can use landmark or life-changing events to divide up her biographical information (for example, “A Major Injury”). When did her “big break” happen and what caused it? The lack of chronology makes the article a bit difficult to navigate- be sure to coordinate life stages and time with the order in the article. Consider adding images to enhance aesthetics. It would be nice to see some of her ballet moves. Remember to provide inline citations and to format them accordingly.
Your sources look legitimate, however I would recommend using more database-like sources like EBSCO to gather the majority of your factual information. Then you can elaborate using other affective information. Make sure you are objective-stay neutral (“her remarkable classical technique”). I would change “List of Sources” to “References”. I would also change the formatting of the awards to a table and perhaps provide links to other Wiki articles about the award.

Earthtoclay (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

This page is very well written and informative without getting overly engrossed in detail. There are, however a few typos and incorrect word choices that should be corrected before the article is finally submitted. most of these changes to be made were rather minor and only require adding in the word "the" or changing case. I would recommend just rereading it for these corrections

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

There did not seem to be many periods omitted from the character's life, and those that were can probably be found on the existing artist page. For this particular subject, I would recommend adding in more photographs since ballet is such a visual profession to show the form and technique of Tamara Rojo. Also the primary photo of the page only showed as the title when I visited, but thats something that you may have already addressed or may be specific to my computer.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

This page was highly professional and specific, citing exhaustive research. Most specifically the "careers" section, which highlights seemingly every performance for the artist, major and minor. For information of this sort, I would like to see a list of performances in which she was featured, even if it's in addition to the information already reported in the career section; basically the same way IMDB gives a list of all the movies in which an actor or director was featured as a list instead of a paragraph to make it easier to read, and scan.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

There did not seem to be any bias for your page, and there was no speculation given. All the facts were presented in a straight to the point manner

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

Very professional page with rather appropriate sections and formatting. Again, I would like to see a section dedicated to all her known performances in list form as that may be something people researching Tamara Rojo might want if they were quickly scrolling through your page. also check on the status of the Information photograph, and possibly add more representative photos Very well done page that's on the right track to merging effortlessly with other professional pages. Coreyjweb (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)