User talk:Awest-ENG235

List of Contributions

Topic: Edith Wharton

• Improve her biography section that was rated as C class of importance
• Improve her importance to women's history, also rated as C class of importance
• Create links to her works
• Improve her writing style section

Awest-ENG235 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary

I am currently working on fixing the historical errors of Edith Wharton's page. For example, the article states her husband is from a wealthy family in Philadelphia when my research has shown he was from Boston. I have also found in my research that her husband was 12 years older and others say 13, so I need to discover which one is true. I am also going to add more to her early life. Like when she started writing and what she started out writing. That is when she began to experimenting with writing. I will also need to cite the sources that I have used. I am sure there will be more edits to be made as I move forward. Awest-ENG235 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You've settled on an article definitely in need of some work, Awest-ENG235. However, this summary could use a bit more detail, and you haven't yet posted your proposed edits to the article Talk page for Edith Wharton (due 10/31). Correcting a few historical inaccuracies will help the article, and you should definitely do that work, but those edits themselves won't quite suffice as a substantial enough contribution for this project. I suggest also expanding on the "writing style" of her page, since it only mentions one quality of her work, irony (and even that isn't cited from a source -- you could fix that!). You might add what literary/aesthetic movements Wharton is associated with, or common themes in her writing, for example, which together would certainly constitute a substantial contribution to this article. You might also add more information about her ghost stories, particular stories or novels you're interested in, or her non-fiction. You're on the right track, so keep working to develop this project! Nadinecross78 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not doing this assignment correctly. I have added my potential edits to Edith Wharton's talk page.Awest-ENG235 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Feedback

• Appearance: Wikipedia formatting seems to be in order. The list is bulleted, the header is formatted, and the hyperlink functions
• Neutrality: The topics addressed are neutral, and there isn't any proposed original research.
• Notability: Edith Wharton is a well-known author, deserving of her own article. The notability guidelines are in order.
• Redundancy: The proposed changes would only exist with this article, so there is no issue with redundancy.
• Relevance: Wharton is an American literary figure, so this article is relevant to our class.
• Focus: Focus is the primary issue with this list of contributions. Simply saying "improve" for each section doesn't necessarily say much about what you will be doing. What's wrong with the sections you are addressing? What topics aren't covered well that you could easily fill in? Also, raising the class of importance is fairly objective, in that no one will really be able to raise that. The writer is who she is, so that likely won't change. The quality, on the other hand, may have room for improvement. Finally, which works were you looking to connect back to her main article? It'll help with your focus if you identify specific pieces of her literature.
• Overall: I think the most important thing to do is to expand on each of your potential contributions, identifying a bit more specifically what you plan to change and how. The scope seems appropriate for the class, and it's definitely notable and relevant, so I don't think you'll run into trouble there.

TortugaEnojada (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Instructor Comments

All of these look promising, Awest-ENG235. You may find working on huge expansive topics like Literary movements and American literature to be too unwieldy for your first editing experience, so I suggest you take a look at the Article Talk pages for those articles to see what other users think needs to be addressed. This might help you focus on a few areas (or maybe related articles) that need work.

Your author pages are also promising -- I especially like that you're looking at Wharton. I've noticed that the scholarship on some of her works, particularly [Ethan Frome] is incomplete and inadequate. To deal with major authors like the ones you're looking at, you may want to focus on improving or adding "Criticism" sections for specific works or adding spur pages for works that are notable but don't have their own pages yet. I look forward to seeing your final decision! Nadinecross78 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work!

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Awest-ENG235 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Edith Wharton page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)