User:Claire Yeiji Hong/The Elephant Vanishes (short story)/Abella16 Peer Review

General info
Claire Yeiji Hong
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Claire Yeiji Hong/The Elephant Vanishes (short story)
 * 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.)

Lead

The lead section is clear and concise. It also provides helpful links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. It's entirely new content. The introductory sentence gives a good overview of the article's topic. The lead section does not describe each major section of the article. The section about critical reception is not mentioned.In addition, magical realism in the story is mentioned in the lead, but not mentioned again in the article itself in terms of how it's exhibited in the story.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic of the article. All content appears up to date. There is no content that does not belong, but information regarding positive reception might be important to include.

Providing multiple interpretations of the major themes was a great way to stay away from bias and to give the reader a broad, fair perspective. Adding any other common interpretations might also be helpful.

The lead section also mentions that the story is set in post-war Japan and deal with the changing postindustrial society. If there is any information on how this influenced the development of the story and how being written in 1980-1991 influenced it as well.

The author's motivation for writing this particular story (if it's available/known) might be important to include. Additionally, why this story has the same title as the entire collection might be notable within the article as well (assuming that because the book has the same title, it's significant compared to the other short stories in some way).

Tone and Balance

The content presents the information in a neutral tone. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased and the content does not appear to favor one position/sway the reader's mind. The section about the critical reception might be an area for improvement in terms of expansion to allow for more representation for that view point. In the same way, positive reception could be added as well.

Sources and References

The links to the sources all worked. The content is all backed up by a reliable secondary source and is a fair representation of the information in the sources used. However, in some other subsections, there is no citation. For example, the sections about the narrator and elephant.

In addition, many of the sections only cite one source, which could be a sign of some bias in those sections. Adding additional sources might be a good idea to round out the information in those sections to include multiple perspectives. (However, I think in the "Plot" section, this is okay since the plot isn't really debated and it's from the book itself). It might be helpful to check this summary of the plot against other summaries to ensure you did not miss anything and that you did not add your own interpretations of the plot into your article.

The sources are fairly thorough. They are current where possible and reflect a variety of authors.

Organization

The article is well organized with sections and subsections to make it easier to understand for the reader. There are no spelling or grammatical errors.

One potential area for improvement could be the section about the plot as it is very lengthy. Being broken into paragraphs helps, but it might also be helpful to add subsections such as the beginning of the story, middle, climax and ending (or whatever is appropriate) to make it easier for the reader to navigate.

Images and Media

The article includes one image that's placed in a way that makes sense and enhances the understanding of the article. The image does adhere to Wikipedia copyright guidelines. Other images such as an image of the author and images illustrating things that relate to the theme could enhance the reader's understanding.

For New Articles Only

The article does meet Wikipedia's notability requirement with more than three reliable, independent secondary sources. The list of sources is somewhat short, and could be expanded to include other sources with differing perspectives. It does link to other Wikipedia articles, making it more discoverable. This is especially helpful in the lead section since there is a difference between the short story and the collection of stories it's a part of.

Overall Impressions

Overall, since it's a new article the content added has improved the overall quality of the article by bringing it closer to completion. Strengths of the content that's been added include its organization. Its use of sections and subsections make for easy understanding. One potential area for improvement is the images and media. More images illustrating key concepts and themes of the story could be helpful to reader understanding of the article. Also, a section about any positive reception of the story could also be added since there is a section about the negative reception.