User:Briilcrockett/A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19--/Brandoncooper001 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Briilcrockett, RavenaWolf, Kaitlynmccall, Tayloremerc, Bbelliott1875
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Briilcrockett/A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19--

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It includes information on the author.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
I feel it is overall an okay Lead section. There could be a bit more flow control to have it a bit better worded, but it is satisfactory.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Having a Character section would be nice.

Content evaluation
The Summary section is the weakest point. Wiki pages aren't for a breakdown of each chapter of a book; many people would expect a single paragraph covering the overarching story with a few important events mentioned. Also, I feel as though the Culture and Historical Context sections could be put together. Wouldn't culture fall under Historical Context?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance is good. The information provided is important and neutral. Nice!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. There is a good amount of direct quotes from the primary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Somewhat. There is very little about the text itself.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
From the training we received, we were told not to use direct quotes. There are a few in there, so make sure they are okay to keep or remove them and replace them with your own words.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? One or two
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat

Organization evaluation
The article feels less like it is about the text and more about the historical background that it is from. Perhaps another section to give more information about the text would help balance it out.

Images and Media- N/A
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? No. Sources do not cover the text itself.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I hope not.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Not really. Many sections are missing compared to other works of literature.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
We need more sources about the story! I know it is probably tough, but one or two should be possible.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is a decent start.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It really gives a fantastic understanding of the world that led to the creation of the text.
 * How can the content added be improved? Talk about the text more.

Overall evaluation
I feel as though this is a good starting point for the real discussion of the text to start. Remove the direct quotes and get into the story and its themes more.

Brandoncooper001 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)