Talk:Troy Jollimore

Untitled

I am reviewing this 11/1 - Jill

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillkdelong (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

I like that you talk about Troy Jollimore in very neutral language in terms of what could otherwise be controversial subject matter. You say “He has also published on topics[of]... ethics of terrorism, the depiction of evil in literature, the nature of happiness, and so-called "admirable immorality."” I find this devoid of arguement or a strict point of view, which is good according to the wiki mods. (they don’t want information that sounds persuasive). So you did a good job reporting on the contents of Jollimore’s criticism, which is hard to do when talking about things like the ethics/morals associated with terrorism. Nice phrasing!

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

The introduction sentence “Troy Jollimore is a poet, philosopher, and literary critic.” is succinct, concise, and accurate. But perhaps your introduction could include more about what you plan to expand on here to include biographical details, or maybe other introductory details about him that won’t be addressed later. I am writing my article about an author, for example… and I plan to include her birthday and other biographical introductions.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I really like your article so far and I find your set up to be promising. Perhaps you could continue to develop and build on the well organized Table of Contents you already have here. Following your model article could provide a good place to start. For example, perhaps you could create a section for the awards or honors that Jollimore has received-- I notice mention of these in the “Career and Education” section, so maybe you could build out a sub-category (or list) for awards. As I mentioned above, I like how you

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

By reading your draft, I have gained some insight that I will apply to my article. For example, the importance of neutrality! Since my topic concerns a feminist/woman writer writing on very gendered topics, my writing has the potential to turn controversial. So I will lead by your example and avoid inflammatory language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillkdelong (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Jill's review continued...

Lead Ask yourself:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead is a bit too short, which I've explained above. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? yes Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? The lead needs a bit more fleshing out. (explained in previous post)

Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Talking about this critics work could be organized a bit better according to chronology Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Nope! Peter does a great job of reporting without arguing for one perspective. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Nope, not at all which is great! Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Sourcing

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Reliable sources so far, great sourcing! Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillkdelong (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pjzimmerjr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)