User:Crmaurik/Derek Walcott/Mbbahen Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Crmaurik, Nsfrohli, Sydnka, Fegraham


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


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

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 identifies the central and objective analysis of the text of Derek Walcott's "Pantomime". Immediately, I noticed the correct usage of grammar that the group had established within the opening statement. However, one of the things that I would change is the inclusion and summary of the different topics and subsections that will be addressed within the final edit. Additionally, I felt that the overall main theme and central social issues that the play deals with are expressed and explored within the opening lead statement. Ultimately, I felt that the opening lead section addresses the main components of what the article discusses without revealing too much information within the opening.

Content:

The content that is utilized within the article explores both the historical and social aspects of the play's construction. I really enjoyed how the group utilized the proper secondary and academic sources within the composition of the Wikipedia article. Overall, I felt that the article's completeness could use improvements in some areas. I felt that the summary of the Act 1 was very well done, but there was very little information on Act 2. If that area could be updated further, this would allow the article to have more information. Overall, I really felt the variety of sources and ultimately, perspectives, was utilized to the group's full advantage during the rough draft. Furthermore, I would highly encourage to continue with the various perspectives and sources, as this creates more variety and diversity on this topic.

Tone and Balance & Sources and References:

As discussed earlier, the secondary sources that have been used within this article have great balance within the perspectives being analyzed. Furthermore, the organization of the article could use some improvements. For example, the Wikipedia page should include a text-box within the area describing the various productions of Derek Walcott's play. In this way, this creates more of an organization and perspective on how the various productions have been coordinated and organized over the years. Overall, the group utilizes a strong blend of varying perspectives and documented information regarding the play's history and ongoing future within English literature.

Organization & Images and Media:

The organization of the article is very well done, and is clear and coherent within the arguments that the group has made. Although, one of my recommendations would be to add different forms of media, such as images from some of the productions over the years, or perhaps an image of the front cover of the play. Additionally, I would love to hear more about Derek Walcott's life, and ultimately, what led him to constructing this play. As stated earlier, I would love more information on Act 2 in the final version of the Wikipedia article, as Act 1 had a very helpful description. Additionally, I felt that the structure of the content was very useful and easy to follow. Ultimately, I really enjoyed reading about this Wikipedia article, and they did a fantastic job covering the various historical and social implementations and information regarding its significance within English literature, and within the African American community.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this group's Wikipedia article. I felt that the structure was very clear and coherent, and it was incredibly easy to follow. Although, one of my major recommendations for this article is in relation to completeness. For example, although most of the article was very much complete, there were certain sections that could be improved on the lack of completeness. More specifically, the first Act information was very detailed and had a full description, however, Act 2 could use further applied information to make it more complete. Additionally, including images could also appeal to more audiences, and it could add more relevance to the discussion topic being of a theatrical work. Overall, I felt that the article had a fantastic structure and it summarized this creative work, while also including relevant secondary sources. Ultimately, I felt that the organization and the secondary sources used were some of the strongest points of this Wikipedia article. Additionally, moving forward, I would encourage utilizes these strengths further to emphasize the description.

~