User:Mowhitworth796
The Problem: Penguin Random House
[edit]Major Issues
Organization- many sections can be condensed into tables and lists to improve ease of reading
Neutral POV- Many areas need to be rewritten and neutralized
Minor copyediting/deletion of redundant info/moving info to different areas
Lead
Needs to be rewritten/information from lead should be moved to other sections- the first sentence of the lead describes the merger that created the company, whereas other publishing articles begin with a simple sentence stating what the organization is. This information is also repeated in the history section, where it really belongs
May want to copyedit middle section of lead- wordy and slightly confusing
Last three sentences of lead appear to have a neutral point of view issue- they sound like sentences that would appear on the company's own site rather than in an encyclopedia
History
Second sentence may need fact-checking for accuracy- verges on biased
"Random House would be the producer films based on Penguin Random House books." needs "of" inserted after producer
"Having previously spearhead" should be changed to spearheaded
"with the assistance of licensing publishing and TV development executive" needs commas in list
"Pearson will likely sell its share in Penguin Random House, though Pearson CEO John Fallon estimates that the company will wait until at least 2017.[10]
In July 2017, Pearson agreed to sell a 22% stake in the business to Bertelsmann, thereby retaining a 25% holding.[11][12]" -This section includes a prediction for 2017, which has passed. Should possibly be deleted
Divisions and Imprints
This is the section that needs the most work. These subsections contain large amounts of text and long, written out lists. Most other publishing company articles list imprints and subsidiaries in list form. Much of the information included in these subsections could likely be deleted entirely, as separate articles exist for almost every imprint and its subsidiaries. My plan is to completely reorganize this section and consider putting information into table format.
DK
Neutral POV First sentence
Crown Publishing Group
Neutral POV Look into use of the word "leading" to describe companies
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Neutral POV "and is known as a publisher of distinguished hardcover fiction and nonfiction"
"Pantheon is known for publishing world-class literature"
Penguin Publishing Group
"Tarcher Penguin focuses on books that teach readers how to Learn, Create and Grow." do research on this imprint to rephrase
Neutral POV "Puffin Books was founded in 1941 to publish quality paperback books for children but now publishes many different formats for young readers. Razorbill focuses on middle grade and young adult books. Speak was launched in 2002 by Puffin Books to focus on classic and cutting edge fiction for young adults. Viking Children's Books also publishes books for young readers and is known for having a rich backlist which includes Newbery and Caldecott Medal winners."
PRH Digital Publishing Group
Needs copyediting and citations
PRH International
Should definitely be a list and needs citations
Book Country
Seems out of place and odd that it has its own section, is also written like an advertisement
To Do List: Penguin Random House
[edit]1. Figure out reorganization of Imprint section -either bulleted lists or table- this is the most pressing and drastic change
2. Revise neutral POV issues and fact-check sentences that seem biased
3. Rewrite lead to align it better with similar articles' lead styles
4. Delete/move redundant or outdated info
5. Copyedit text for minor improvements
6. Provide citations for sections that need them
The Problem: The Giving Tree
[edit]Major Issues
Neutral POV and overuse of quotations- A lot of this article seems biased towards one interpretation of the book and relies heavily on quotations, making it seem more like an essay than an encyclopedia article
The goal of the article seems to be to present interpretations of the story and the author, rather than to provide general information about the book
Many assertions begin with "some people say" or "some authors believe" without sufficient evidence to back this up or any specific person behind each claim
Organization- Much of the interpretation and Critics section seems like an info dump that could be better organized. I would also like to consider combining Interpretations and Critics (which I think should be changed to "Criticism" anyway), as much of the information repeats itself.
The entire section regarding the author's photo seems biased and un-encyclopedic
To Do List: The Giving Tree
[edit]1. Verify all sources of seemingly biased info
2. Cut down on quotations
3. Neutralize biased language
4. Consider reorganization and deletion of redundant info
5. Find sources for claims from "some authors" and "some people"
6. Look into rewrite and neutralization of author's photo section
Three Articles I Would Like to Edit
[edit]Needs Improvement
[edit]The lead has no citations, and could possibly be expanded.
The Objects section under Gameplay could be expanded- it contains one sentence. The Gameplay section could include a subheading for clothing items, the neighborhood editor, and the "Create a Sim" function, with citations.
The Expansion Packs section needs additional citations.
This article contains multiple headings and subheadings that seem messy and confusing.
Early Years is missing a citation.
Events of 1492 category seems out of place.
Family section has no citations.
Other sections seem to rely heavily on one or few sources
 | This user is a student editor in Texas_AM/Technical_Editing_(Spring_2018). |