User:BornUnderPunches/Frankenstein's Monster/Angrycabbagemerchant Peer Review

Peer Review


 * Lead
 * While there is a lead sentence, it is too brief and doesn't specifically entail what the article is going to be examining.
 * The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Content
 * The article discusses topics related to underrepresented populations and topics by examining the racial coding of the monster.
 * The content included is relevant to the topic.
 * Near the end of the article, many of the sources are briefly skimmed over in only one sentence explanations. Therefore, some relevant content from those sources could be missing and should be included.
 * Tone and Balance
 * I feel that the tone changes frequently throughout this article and is a little choppy.
 * I think that the viewpoint that we do not know if Shelley purposefully meant to racialize the monster in order to create social commentary is underrepresented.
 * Therefore, the ambiguity of the situation and the exact race of the monster creates more intrigue in itself.
 * I think that the last paragraph, particularly with the listing of sources, has a tone that attempts to persuade the reader and should be changed.
 * Sources and References
 * While I was able to open the links on the words, I could not open the links of the sources.
 * While the articles are not terribly old, it might be possible to find more current ones.
 * I would advise increasing the number of sources used in order to diversify your spectrum of authors.


 * Organization
 * I think that the content of the writing is not written well - it was confusing for me at some points to follow along.
 * The organization of the overall article needs to be worked on more. At the moment, the paper is difficult to follow as the topics jump back and forth and an overarching point does not seem to be present.
 * A few grammatical errors are present.
 * Images and media
 * I would advise adding some images to the article to enhance the readers understanding of the topic.
 * Overall impressions
 * I think that a strength of the article is the varied examples of the theorized racial identity of the monster. I would suggest utilizing the information from these sources more in order to make this perspective more clear to the reader.
 * This information is important as it can make the overall article more complete by examining the complexities of the creature, the potential commentary of Shelley's world, and larger implications towards slavery.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BornUnderPunches


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


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

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.)