Talk:Instapoetry/Archive 1

Archive 1

April 2019

Hey! I think your topic is really interesting! Your sources are all really interesting to look through. The lead is concise and done well. One part that I think is of concern is the last line of the "History and Elements" section which is "This contrast of loaded subjects vs. short lines gives audience opportunity to react and reflect in a way that traditional poetry lacks." I think this may be a bit opinionated, especially because it's all very subjective. Unless there is a source that can be directed to suggesting this. I think it could be worded in a different way or taken out so it doesn't make the article look biased. One other thing is you have the criticism section but nothing there. Adding on to it would be really interesting, especially because this is such a new form/genre within literature/poetry!

I do really like how you included some of the most popular instapoets. Overall, I think this is a good start. Good job! Jbalbz (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

a recent article

https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/how-instagram-could-stifle-a-new-generation-of-poets/94620?utm_term=OZY&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyDose_06102019&utm_content=Final 213.109.221.54 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Article review

1. What your article does well: Your outlining/formatting is very clear and easy to read along.the way it's written at the sentence level is also easy to follow along with, and I don't find myself stumbling when I read it.

2. Changes I suggest and why they would be improvements: remove the list of popular instapoets, or at least merge it with a related topic. The list belongs as more of a separate "list" article on wikipedia, and it's unsourced. both of these factors detract from your article as a whole. You also have an entire section dedicated to reception of instapoetry (supporters and statistics), but it's not reflected in your lead. Include at least a reference to it in your lead to make your lead more representative of the article as a whole. I also suggest renaming supporters and statistics as just "supporters", as I don't see any statistics in there. If you do add statistics later, I recommend putting them in their own "statistics" subsection. Otherwise the subheader can be misleading. FInally, make sure everything is sourced: your list of popular instapoets needs some sort of metric or source, else it's very easy for it to be influenced by bias. Further, the closing line for "history and elements" needs a source, otherwise it seems like a judgement call on your end which we're trying to avoid.

3.The most important thing to do to improve it: work on your neutrality. Your second, third, and fourth sources all mention criticisms made of instapoetry and the second source provides you with a bibliography so you can read that criticism firsthand. I highly suggest you include these criticisms in the name of keeping your article neutral to the idea of instapoetry and presenting all sides of the idea fairly. For example, your third source talks about people insulting instapoetry by calling it "greeting card poetry".

4.Is anything applicable to my article? Personally I think my article has some places that are difficult to read/slog through, so I think I should take a page from this page and try to make my article more approachable.

Renegadeknight3 (talk)

• I think the list of Instapoets should be retained. Wanting to find out more about this art form, I expected to see the names of prominent practitioners -- and not have to go off to some separate page for it. That said, the inclusion of people in the list should be supported (e.g., by critical literature, by being people with Wikipedia pages, or by statistics).

213.109.221.54 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• The history section does not have any dates! When did it start? Just relating it to social media hardly tells me when it began. I don't know when Instagram or Twitter etc. started, and some-one reading this article shouldn't have to go to sites on those topics to try to figure out the (even approximate) dates. 213.109.221.54 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost

Looking pretty good. I would paraphrase parts of that long quote in your second section. The concerns about objectivity might also warrant a little more consideration. Profhanley (talk)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunishka134.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zarroyo1. Peer reviewers: Renegadeknight3, Jbalbz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)