Talk:Literary criticism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:11, 15 July 2014

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.

--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 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.

--Admin (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 --[[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)