User talk:Bethani.dopson/sandbox

It is a good article with interesting information on the author. However, if the Wikipedia article is based upon the Book that information about the author would not be in place normally. The chapters that are summarized and give a good insight into some of the content of the book, but unless you’re going to summarize all of the chapters they might feel a tad out of place. Especially since the chapters you chose talk about specifically. The chapter summaries are very interesting, but without a lack of a summary over the whole of the book it gives a limited perspective over the book. I have not personally read the book, there probably is more than three interesting chapters to talk about. You should both expand and give a solid summary over the Entirety of the book, or summaries for each chapter. The work you did was very interesting and solid but it was too brief to give a full picture of the full book. Otherwise, it’s a good start to a great article. TedABear (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)