User talk:Paxiwiki/sandbox

Sandbox/analysis looks good, Angelo. Profhanley (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Angelo - - Sources look good. What's going on with the citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Next Phase

The page is really shaping up! Time to get a content expert to take a look at it. Try clicking on the "Get Help" button to solicit an outside opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review/Hanley

Yes, yes . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Really great work here.

This is honestly very well done. It is thorough, interesting, unbiased, and has citations in all the right places. I can tell you put effort into this, and I feel like I have a fairly decent understanding of Nikos Kazantzakis. Whenever I give feedback for a person's writing I try to say something positive, and also give at least one piece of constructive criticism. In your case, I don't see any area you should change. Awesome work! The only edit you should make is adding a space in this sentence:

"Many of Kazantzakis' most famous novels were published between 1940 and 1961, including Zorba the Greek (1946),Christ Recrucified (1948), Captain Michalis (1950), The Last Temptation of Christ (1955), and Report to Greco (1961)."

It needs one right after "(1946)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoay (talk • contribs) 09:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review/ Menschel

I really like what you've done the article. I think taking the literary section and separating it into several sections really helped the flow of the article. The religious beliefs really did need there own section so I was happy to see you had made one. Also the Language section highlighted an important element I didn't even really noticed in the original article (other than a brief mention). As for tips, I have virtually none at this point. It was hard for me to identify any content gaps and I think the format of your sections is spot on. The only thing I can suggest is to go back and comb the article once more for grammatical errors. I did notice a handful (maybe 4?) of errors in grammar, mostly typos. Other than that, I'd say this paper is ready! Have a good one! Menschel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)