Talk:Méira Cook

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aidelprin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Awards

Aidelprin, I can't tell if these awards have encyclopedic significance or not. They are not linked to anything that proves they're meaningful (like the Booker Prize or something like that), and the sourcing--well, it's sourced to her own webpage, so that's not helpful. So two out of the four references really are not reliable enough to function in an article like this--we can use such sourcing to establish basic facts like employment, but not for things that praise the subject, for instance. The article from the Gale database needs to be properly documented: the link works only if you're at AUM, which most people in the world are not. How to cite it is actually indicated on that very page. But it's not much, and the article needs more.

This and this can be used to verify that she is also a critic of literature who has published on Fugitive Pieces, and you can actually look for that article of hers and use it to beef up the article on Fugutive Pieces--which in turn will establish a link from that article to this one. There are a few hits in JSTOR also that help establish her as a critic, but what you also need to do is search for individual titles (like "Toward a Catalogue of Falling") and go through the Google hits to find reviews published by reliable sources. There's material there. Good luck. Dr Aaij (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead: The lead is a concise and gives a background to what is later discussed.

Sourcing: The sources are thoroughly dispersed throughout the article. The sources seem to be credible, with one being a journal article, two being university websites, and then one being the press. It is a good variety and amount for what is written.

Structure: This article is organized with multiple headings. It is broken into important aspects of the topic, making it easy to find certain information.

Language: I thought the article was easy to read overall. The language could have more variety. The first think I noticed was how the lead had every sentence starting the same way. Also, in the career section, it seemed to be a list, rather than making the sentences flow. Stacy.johnson515 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead:Very detailed, tells about information that is also discussed in the article.

Sourcing:The sourcing is excellent, everything has a reference to where they got their information from. All of them seem to be secondary sources. ( One of them comes from Jsotr which is through our school so I am sure that was one is valid & the other three comes from an University website.)

Structure:The article is organized very well, every section has a clear header and or title. The information under each one has corresponding information.

Language:The article is easy to read and understand, it just seems like they copied and pasted the lead sentence for their first one in the second section. Other than that it was very fluent & I enjoyed reading it.--Quarantineditor (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)