Revising the five entries based on my critique and the modelsprovided in class is crucial to making the entries goodencyclopedias. The first entry on Samizdat is a good encyclopediadue to several reasons. It starts by giving the definition ofSamizdat as a classification of underground Russian literature thatis published chiefly under the Soviet Union. This explanation offersinsight into the background information of the encyclopedia entry. Itenables a reader to know what the article will be discussing.Throughout the paper, Samizdat is discussed comprehensively withgreat sentence coherence. The second entry titled Dash Cams is ashort but well elaborated entry. It describes Dash cams as manportable devices capable of video recording that are employed ondashboards of personal vehicles for purposes of recording roadevents. What makes the encyclopedia entry on dash cams a good articleis minimal personal opinion. It focuses on the facts of the dash camwithout derailing to discuss other things thus making the entry avalid and a good one.
The third entry on Queer space starts with a quote and does notoffer an explanation of which topic is being discussed. Most of theentry seems to have been quoted and lacks a consistent flow. It canbe corrected by making it simple and coherent for readers tounderstand what the entry is all about. The Russian orthodox churcharticle is a good encyclopedia entry as it employs all aspects of agood entry. It starts with brief background information, explainingabout the church and concluding with references. The fifth entryfocuses on the artist, exhibitionist Pyotr. He is introduced as ananti-Putin activist who was famous for painful public stunts andgraphics. His background information is impressive making thisencyclopedia entry an incredible piece.
In response to my peer’s work for the good job done, I thoughtthat all the hard work I had put in to complete the entries deservedapplauding. The corrections given helped me improve my work and werehelpful ways of describing the experience of writing the entry. Thishelped me improve the entry, through working on developing goodentries. This was because it helped me build better writing skillsand understand what I was writing about more. The suggestions givenby my peers helped me research and seek advice to improve the entry,through working on developing good entries. I was able to correct allgrammatical errors and correct punctuations mistakes to improve thearticle. Through correcting those mistakes, the entry appeared moreaccurate and well proof read.
When I wrote the entries, I discovered that it got easier with timeas I understood it to mean what I had been asked to write about. Iwanted to write the entries according to the lecture notes. I startedby writing the introduction followed by the background informationand the literature review before concluding and referencing. My peersunderstood me to have written about the Queer space for instance todescribe the time space compression. While that is what I meant Irealized that not everyone got what you mean for the first time. As awriter thus, I had to think about how to write entries that will notconfuse readers. Coherent, comprehensive, grammatically correctentries would make good articles to read.