User:Andreanicolecruz/The Giver/Nyaronya Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Andreanicolecruz's work.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Here is the draft I am reviewing.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Here is the current version of the article.

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * I am unsure of what sections you actually changed, as it is formatted weirdly.
 * Why are 2 of the sections in bold / Header font? I am unsure where these sections come from.
 * For the references, why are some in bold and the rest in the regular format?
 * The content itself was good, however I am unable to compare it to the current article as I can't tell which part came from where. I am unsure which section the first paragraph is supposed to go to.
 * A good neutral tone throughout the draft. I am assuming the parts that doesn't say "Edited" or "revised" are your own original sections, and I think they are very thorough and informative. :)
 * Most content that was edited is for the reception section of the article. While it is a substantial amount, maybe work on other sections? For example, the plot section is like a wall of text, maybe try to condense it. (However I understand if it is not possible to do so because of the minimal details necessary to understand the plot.)