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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BornUnderPunches Tackeret


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:BornUnderPunches/Frankenstein's Monster - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Frankenstein's monster - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 1) Lead
 * 2) You lead into your topic well, although it may help to transition the reader in if you add more explanatory sentences onto why this idea of the racialized other is so important to the ideas that you are talking about. This would help to tie your paragraph into the rest of the article as well, and would explain why your contribution is relevant.
 * 3) Content
 * 4) You do great at making sure you use neutral language throughout your contribution, and there is no argument that leans towards one side or the other in your writing, which is great. It allows the reader to make up their own mind instead. The content that you provide helps to further the discussion about the novel without taking away from any previously added work, however it could be clarified and gone back through to make sure that it flows smoothly all the way through.
 * 5) Tone and Balance
 * 6) Once again, you do great at keeping a neutral tone as you discuss the monster and how it was potentially used as a racial code. Your viewpoints are decently balanced, but it does seem like there is not a lot of explanation or analysis on some of the evidence that you provide.
 * 7) Sources and References
 * 8) Great job in citing your sources and properly linking them to your citation list, however I was not able to find the actual links to any of the articles that you use in your contributions.
 * 9) Organization
 * 10) Make sure to go back through what you have written and check for grammar mistakes, also make sure that your contribution flows smoothly and does not have any strange pauses or breaks between points. Use transition statements between points to help smooth it out.
 * 11) Overall Impressions
 * 12) You guys did a great job, and the information that you add is genuinely intriguing. The main issues that I saw was the lack of links to your sources and some minor grammar errors that would help to fix the clarity issues and make your contribution flow more smoothly.