User talk:Nsyguo/sandbox

Hi - There is another review of Sub Rosa here in SQ Magazine: https://sqmag.com/2014/06/30/edition-15-book-review-sub-rosa-by-amber-dawn/. And "Casey the Lesbian Librarian" has also reviewed this book, https://caseythecanadianlesbrarian.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/hello-world/ Cheers, Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Astu260_Instructor (Kathryn)

Hi - Here is Will's comment, also on your draft article talk page. --Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Hi Team Sub Rosa - your draft article is looking good. I have just a couple of small suggestions. First, you might want to consider expanding the intro section (above the table of contents) a bit. If someone is only going to scan that section of the article, what summary information about the book is important that they take away? For me, I might want to know that it has won awards, is the author's debut novel, and maybe a sentence about the key theme. You've also done a nice job of linking to other Wikipedia articles, but don't forget to link to the Amber Dawn article (and once your article is published, you can go to that page and create a link to your article). You may also want to change the name of the Reviews section to Reception or Critical Reception and in that section change the tense to past tense ("The Globe and Mail’s Jim Bartley remarked"). Cheers! Will (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi All - I'm checking in here, too. I really like the quotation you have from Dawn at the end. A very minor point is a typo ("are are" rather than "and are), and then another point is to use "sex worker" throughout rather than 'prostitute" or "sexual worker" which you have now. While prostitute used to be a common term, it has very negative connotations so "sex worker" is now used instead, as explained here: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/why-is-the-canadian-media-still-referring-to-sex-workers-as-prostitues. If you are quoting someone else (e.g., a direct quotation in quotes), then you can use the term they use, but if you are speaking or paraphrasing, then use the contemporary term. Building off of Will's point about the opening of the article, you might find the one for Fifteen Dogs helpful (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Dogs), although I note that all the paragraph breaks seem unnecessary for such a short intro. Here is the one for Room: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_(novel). Best, Kathryn --Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Another minor thing I spotted, which is not doubt in progress: you seem to have multiple entries for the same source. Kathryn --Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kathryn, thank you for your suggestions. I've just fixed the sections that both you and Will mentioned. We will continue working on the intro over the next few days. :) Cheers! Karol.pasciano (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi All - If you'd like to invite more readers to your new article, you could add Dawn's work to the Lambda Awards page (as far as I can tell, she is not listed yet): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_Literary_Award Cheers, Kathryn --Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)