User:Babybear444/A Noiseless Patient Spider/Momo 318 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Babybear444


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babybear444/A_Noiseless_Patient_Spider?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * A Noiseless Patient Spider

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

1 The lead:

Babybear444 updated much information in the "content" part, so it will be better if Babybear 444 updates the lead section to reflect the new content.

2. Content:

The content added is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date (one of the references dated 2000).

3. Tone and Balance:

The content is neutral. Babybear 444 adds some information about "structure" and "influence." The former talks about the meter and literary devices, which is quite objective analysis; in the latter part, Babybear 444 refers to some references.

However, as a reader, I wonder why this poem has such influences because I cannot get any direct criticism from this article. Though a reader can read the poem and analyze it, it takes time. Though Babybear 444 has added some analysis on the structure, I would hope to gain more information.

Moreover, the "Publication" takes too much space, though I know the original article has had this part. After I read this article, I knew the original version and some early publication information, but I still wondered how I could read the final version of this poem.

4. Sources and References

A reliable secondary source of information backs up the new content, which accurately reflects what the cited sources say. However, it seems Babybear 444 hasn't finished the second paragraph of this article, and thus I cannot see the related references. Moreover, the first footnote lacks the page number. Furthermore, the original article doesn't add references to the "early publication and draft," it would be better if Babybear 444 could add some.

5. Organization:

The new content added is well-written: it is clear and easy to read. I could barely see grammatical or spelling errors.

6. Images and Media:

The article doesn't include images, so Babybear 444 may add some to enhance understanding of the topic. For instance, some books photos of early publication.

7. Overall impressions:

Babybear 444 precisely notices what the original article lacks and adds more necessary sections to the article. Moreover, Babybear 444 stresses the "Influences," which I think is very helpful: this part has shown why this topic is so important.