User:Crmaurik/Derek Walcott/JWSV Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Crmaurik


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Crmaurik/Derek Walcott


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead is cohesive and concise the third line could be revised to improve setting clarity. Information regarding the interplay of English and Afrikaans languages could also be added for further depth.

Content

Act 1 Summary

The summary is fairly long but thorough in its depiction of the events relevant to following the plot of the narrative. Potentially cut it down but overall looks good and reads well.

Act 2

Presently missing though I'm sure will be similar to Act 1 in content quality.

Tone / Balance

All content appears neutral providing insight without influence over the interpretation of the play. Supporting features cover a sufficient timeline, though consider arranging Critical Reception chronologically.

Sources / References

The sources and references used do not favor any particular interpretation over the other. As previously mentioned the supporting sources cover a fairly broad timeline; which allows for varied interpretations based on the societal ideologies of a given time period.

Organization

Overall flow of the article is cohesive and adequately thorough in synopsis of the text. All components of the article are neatly organized under appropriate subheadings.

Images / Media

Images and media not present though understandable due to copyright laws.

New Article Information

To my knowledge your article meets notability standards based on the reference content used. The sources used cover both critical reviews and academic work pertaining to the article subject. There could always be more sources however 14 seems to be a good starting point for the article. With those 14 sources you have created a considerable amount of secondary article links.

Overall impression

I am unsure of the starting point of this article but I assume that all of it is created content not added content. Either way created or added to the article reads well while maintaining neutrality and flow. Minor adjustments could be made to improve the articles flow. Each adjustment is only a subjective opinion, several are mentioned above with the final being the consideration of switching theatrical elements to be your second subheading. This change would introduce an unfamiliar reader to what Pantomime is without having to scroll through the article effectively setting up the rest of the article content.