User talk:Sgeekie/sandbox

What's up, guys? For the plot, I think we really don't have to add anything substantial to what's already in the stub. What do you think?

Sgeekie (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just read the plot on Stoner and they really covered everything that I would say. I feel like we are good there. Allyi2016 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting wise are we doing that today in class? I noticed some sections had just quotes, but we still need to paraphrase those right? I was just checking out the plagiarism section and I remembered it mentioned we can use brief quotes, but it was mostly supposed to be paraphrased. I just wanted to double check. Jgalbreath (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added and cited a long quote from one of my sources to the Publication History section in order to aid whomever was responsible for that section--Peter, I think. I assumed it was understood that the quote would have to be summarized and the context filled in. KalPence (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the content over to the article page! The reception section seems to be the most robust currently. Hopefully other users can add to themes - the manual of style indicates this section is one of the most important, and it could use some additional research outside of what we've read to really expand on each of the major themes. Kristenknoerzer (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The reception section may still need to have some work done in terms of formatting. It is hard to tell what information should be in one paragraph and what information should be in another. Would it make sense to break up the reception section into sections such as Early Reception for the first printing of the novel and New Reception that comments on the recent reprinting? I am not for sure if this would help that section flow better or not. Jgalbreath (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]