339
edits
Talk:Literary criticism: Difference between revisions
→Evaluation Comments: final evaluation
m (→Evaluation Comments: Added link to plagiarism policy) |
(→Evaluation Comments: final evaluation) |
||
| 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) | |||