Talk:The Iliac Crest

Untitled
Talk Page

We have added a link to this page from Cristina Rivera Garza's page. This should fix the orphan status. Azurhellen (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicholasDennison, Azurhellen. Peer reviewers: Alexander.Larabie, Char.daigle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review of The Iliac Crest
The lead section seems pretty strong and concise. You've got a good summary of the plot without giving too much detail, and some interesting points about the background of the novel as well. I think some of the sentence structure could be clearer, for example, "It focuses on the unnamed narrator as he deals with a True and False Amparo Dávila and an ex-lover referred to as the Betrayed" seems a little confusing.

The content seems fulfilling and relevant for the most part. I enjoyed the plot summary and character details, though I feel like both could use a bit of trimming (this is personal opinion). From what I understand about Wikipedia policy, since your author already has a Wikipedia page for herself, it would be inappropriate to have a section of your article dedicated to her; simply leaving a link to her page in the lead would suffice.

The tone of the page is very consistent and pretty neutral overall. I would double check your sections on "Characters" and "Themes", as there seems to be a lot of interpretation in both of those sections. I don't personally have a benchmark for how much interpretation is too much, but it seems like you might need references for some of the points you make, however valid they may be.

The page has eight articles, and all of them seem to be reliable and relevant. All the links work and the information provided in the article follows from what is included at each source.

The organization is pretty good. I would personally move the stuff like the "translation" section up towards the top of the page with the lead and the infobox, but I hardly think that what you have now is terrible. I didn't notice any glaring grammar or spelling errors in the article, besides the lead section I mentioned previously. I would recommend making each bolded bullet point under "Themes" it's own sub-heading, so that it shows up in the "contents" box for easier accessibility.

You have one image at the moment, and I don't think that more is strictly necessary, considering the article's topic. I would probably add a picture of the book cover to the infobox when you're able, though I understand from personal experience that it might not be possible until after the article goes live.

You do have the infobox, and everything there seems accurate and relevant.

Overall, good article. Always room for improvement, but certainly nothing to be ashamed of :)

--Alexander.Larabie (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You've got some great advice from your reviewer, though he understates the case. First, yes, cut your plot summary in half. Next, trim the character descriptions. Add a section for Critical Reception and put in opinions of reviewers, prize, and translations around the world. Finally, in the THEMES, you can only mention themes that are mentioned in your sources. You are reporting, not analyzing, remember. This is very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Yseut229* (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review of "The Iliac Crest"
Lead: The Lead does clearly and concisely state what the article will be about through the naming of the book and the author/translator. It also discusses the publication dates of the novel in its original language, Spanish, and the date when it was translated into English. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections through the quick detailed summary of some of the book's content. Through the few sentence summary, it could be inferred that a plot would be detailed, characters would be described, and themes be mentioned. Information that is in the Lead that is later not found in the article include the awards the novel received, but I do not see that as an issue as there is no need to have a whole section dedicated to the awards--unless of course a detailed explanation of the wards is wanted. I do not think the Lead is overly detailed. It thoroughly describes the key points of the novel in it's few sentence summary of the plot, but is concise as it does not share too much detail nor unneeded wording.

Content: The content in the article is relevant to the topic. The plot is a detailed summary of the novel's contents, taking the reader through the main points of the story.The character section gives an in-depth description of each main character in the novel including who they are, their job, their whereabouts and positions in the novel, etc. The themes section clearly points out the motifs within the novel and their purposes are as thematic elements. I do not think there is a need for the author section in this article. The article is meant to be over the book, not the author. It does not seem to be pertinent knowledge. The translation section does not really talk about the translated novel, but the translator herself. Again, I do not think this is needed because the article is meant to be a discussion over the novel, not the author and translator. I believe those two individuals should already have or later have their on Wikipedia page.

Tone and Balance: I found the article to be written neutrally. The Lead and contents clearly state evident facts from the novel, but when I read the Themes section, I did notice considerable interpretation with citations, so I wondered if those were your own interpretations or interpretations found in sources. If they're your own, I'd suggest trying to find credible evidence of those interpretations.

Sources and References: While I did see the use of eight sources, I did not see them incorporated in the Themes and Character sections. I think it would be a good idea to have a source backing up the descriptions and interpretations you are presenting. The links I clicked on worked and look to be very informative.

Organization: The article itself was organized well. I do think, though, that if you were to keep the author and translation sections that they should be put right after the leading intro section. It just seems to flow better as those two sections are describing the external parts of the novel more than the internal.

Images and Media: The image of the author is the only one on the page, and it does seem to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I do think that an image pertaining to the novel itself, rather than the author would be better because again, this page is on the book, not the author.

Info box: There is an info box present on the page and does look to have all the correct information within it, in an organized and concise manner.

````char.daigle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Char.daigle (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)