Talk:Clockwork Princess

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Audryelise18. Peer reviewers: Nirmeenmandour.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article needs major work
The synopsis begins "Tessa Gray should be happy -- aren't all brides happy?" Give me a break, is this an encyclopedia or a publisher's advert? This article needs to focus on why this novel is notable. Is it? Darx9url (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://livingforthebooks.blogspot.ca/2013/03/review-clockwork-princess-by-cassandra.html or some similar source – probably originally from the back-cover blurb of the book. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead does a good job of summarizing what the novel is and what it is about. I think in terms of the importance of the topic, maybe you could include some critical praise of it or some sort of sales record (NYT bestseller etc.). I appreciate that you didn't spoil the plot in the lead. I hate when wiki articles do that.

Structure
The sections are organized well. Plot should always be first, and the character section works as well. I would say that both sections run a bit too long. You don't want to give away the entire plot or describe tertiary characters in too much detail. I would also suggest adding a "reception" section containing the critical acclaim of the book.

Balance/Neutrality
The article felt extremely balanced and neutral. You did a good job of relaying information about the novel without letting your own opinion bleed through. There is no negative or positive, just information.

sourcing
It seems like you cited all your sources in the lead and went off your own summary of the book for the rest of the article. This is okay, but maybe including a "reception" section would allow you to cite your sources more. I noticed you cite book reviews, so this would be perfect for that.

Overall
The article does a great job (maybe too good) of summarizing the novel and giving an incite into the plot and characters. I would suggest adding a "reception" section and cutting some of the plot details and minor characters to make the article more concise and less dense. I will definitely attempt to emulate your level of detail for my own article!