Talk:Literary criticism - Revision history

Admin: /* Evaluation Comments */ final evaluation

2014-07-21T18:22:28Z

Evaluation Comments: final evaluation

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 21 July 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:

	--[[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (EDT)		--[[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

			I received no tweet, but I must finish my evaluation.

			The plagiarism issues is half fixed. Let me say: cutting and pasting large pieces of text is un acceptable in an academic assignment. If you do this, however, is is a quotation. Quotations must be indicated in one of two ways. How are these examples indicated as quotations? This is ultimately lazy and sloppy. Finally, only the last line of the section of text you copied from Wikipedia is cited.

			Speaking of quotations, the large block quote you have at the top of the entry is (1) not introduced — you can't just slap in a large quotation like that without introducing it; (2) you didn't close the tag, so the rest of your entry is still part of that block quote. This is a fairly large oversight.

			Again, much of the material should have support. For example, how do you know that Plato "essentially attacked all poetry"? Citations must occur on the sentence level.

			Footnote numbers should go after final punctuation. See Wikipedia.

			Capitalization is still incorrect on subheads.

			External links could have more explanation. For example, a summary of the link or why it's important to the entry.

			With these things aside, some good work has been done here. The writing is generally strong, readable, and follows MediaWiki conventions. For a first class wiki, this is pretty strong.

			--[[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

Admin: /* Evaluation Comments */ Added link to plagiarism policy

2014-07-15T19:21:06Z

Evaluation Comments: Added link to plagiarism policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 15 July 2014
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Well done, folks. Your article is comprehensive without being too bulky. This is a good starting point for college students in English hoping to get an overview or starting point for a better understanding of literary criticism.		Well done, folks. Your article is comprehensive without being too bulky. This is a good starting point for college students in English hoping to get an overview or starting point for a better understanding of literary criticism.

	That said, I think the post needs more support overall. Some could be outright plagiarism. For example, this sentence — “Literary criticism is how users evaluate and interpret art.” — needs support, and it should perhaps have multiple sources. Any statements like this that read like facts, need to be supported with evidence. Sources need to be cited on a sentence-by-sentence basis.		That said, I think the post needs more support overall. Some could be outright [http://litmuse.net/policy/plagiarism plagiarism]. For example, this sentence — “Literary criticism is how users evaluate and interpret art.” — needs support, and it should perhaps have multiple sources. Any statements like this that read like facts, need to be supported with evidence. Sources need to be cited on a sentence-by-sentence basis.

	As far as plagiarism, the list of resources under “Early critics and texts” is exactly copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism#Key_texts Wikipedia] without giving any credit to this source. On a standard paper, this would be plagiarism, plain and simple. Here, it is, too. Why would you not give credit? This is of paramount importance. Rather than a failure, this will cost a letter grade. It also makes me think more of the information int he document might be plagiarized. Are there any other sections? It appears all of your textual example are stolen from Wikipedia.		As far as plagiarism, the list of resources under “Early critics and texts” is exactly copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism#Key_texts Wikipedia] without giving any credit to this source. On a standard paper, this would be plagiarism, plain and simple. Here, it is, too. Why would you not give credit? This is of paramount importance. Rather than a failure, this will cost a letter grade. It also makes me think more of the information int he document might be plagiarized. Are there any other sections? It appears all of your textual example are stolen from Wikipedia.

Admin: /* Evaluation Comments */ new section

2014-07-15T19:11:06Z

Evaluation Comments: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 15 July 2014
Line 14:		Line 14:

	--[[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 06:38, 12 July 2014 (EDT)		--[[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 06:38, 12 July 2014 (EDT)

			== Evaluation Comments ==

			Well done, folks. Your article is comprehensive without being too bulky. This is a good starting point for college students in English hoping to get an overview or starting point for a better understanding of literary criticism.

			That said, I think the post needs more support overall. Some could be outright plagiarism. For example, this sentence — “Literary criticism is how users evaluate and interpret art.” — needs support, and it should perhaps have multiple sources. Any statements like this that read like facts, need to be supported with evidence. Sources need to be cited on a sentence-by-sentence basis.

			As far as plagiarism, the list of resources under “Early critics and texts” is exactly copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism#Key_texts Wikipedia] without giving any credit to this source. On a standard paper, this would be plagiarism, plain and simple. Here, it is, too. Why would you not give credit? This is of paramount importance. Rather than a failure, this will cost a letter grade. It also makes me think more of the information int he document might be plagiarized. Are there any other sections? It appears all of your textual example are stolen from Wikipedia.

			This needs to be fixed before I can evaluate this project, please.

			Please do so by Friday, July 18 and Tweet me when this is fixed and I will complete my evaluation.

			--[[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Admin: Created page with "Looking really good, guys. A couple of suggestions: * remove the Introduction header. This sections should be above the TOC, like all Wikipedia entries. * use Subheads feathe..."

2014-07-12T10:38:30Z

Created page with "Looking really good, guys. A couple of suggestions: * remove the Introduction header. This sections should be above the TOC, like all Wikipedia entries. * use Subheads feathe..."

New page

Looking really good, guys. A couple of suggestions:

* remove the Introduction header. This sections should be above the TOC, like all Wikipedia entries.
* use Subheads feather than bullets and bold. These will then appear in the TOC.
* remove spaces before footnote numbers. These should be right on the information they are citing. Again see Wikipedia for examples.
* no external links in a Links section?
* titles of essays should be in quotation marks — not italicized.
* make sure paragraphs are full returns. They are not in the "Types" section. There's lots of info there and it's all bunched together.
* check capitalization: headers should conform to title cap conventions.
* some reference are repeated rather than using the REF tag correctly. No references should be repeated. If it's the same, it should share an entry.
* should dictionaries be cited?

Make these changes, folks, and you probably have an A for this assignment.

--[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 06:38, 12 July 2014 (EDT)