User:Decross6/David Chariandy/Knowacki1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Decross6/David Chariandy)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Decross6/David Chariandy


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The newly updated lead has changed to introducing the book Brother and includes a description of the book. The lead may be too overly detailed; the second half of the lead’s first paragraph seems like it would fit better in plot summary or analysis. The lead is also confusing because the Wikipedia page is on David Chariandy (focused on his work of Brother). Still, there is nothing mentioned in the lead about David himself or his life as the author. There is one sentence related to the author's background later on in the article, but it is not mentioned in the lead.

Content:

In terms of content, there is a lot of good information here that is up to date and relevant to the story, like the character descriptions and settings. Separating the character list to primary and secondary was an excellent addition to having good clarity. I think that adding content relevant to the author would bring the article together. Like my wiki author, you will most likely not find a lot on Chariandy in the academic libraries simply because they are not prominent known authors. However, you can also pull primary sources on his personal life from direct spoken interviews.

The book also reveals many social issues and represents disadvantaged groups of minorities who come to Canada. Under themes, I think adding some analysis of where these social issues arise in the book and the significance of writing about these topics would be beneficial to your article.

Tone & Balance:

I would say the tone is neutral and provides strictly with the novel itself. In terms of balance, I have already covered my recommendations about involving the author more and representing the topics of social issues and immigration more in-depth.

Sources:

Although there are only a couple of sources so far, they are all relevant to the written parts and contribute to the article positively. My only recommendation with sourcing is to include more in-text citations specifically in the lead because there is none, and I think there could be, for example, after the first line stating where the book was published.

Organization:

Overall, the article’s organization has potential (since it is just a rough draft), but currently is a bit confusing because of its layout strictly being on the novel. When I read the original article, the revised version does provide much more information on the book but skips out a lot on the author. I liked how the group organized all the subtitles even without any information provided yet for them.

Image:

I think the image chosen for the page is a good choice. The picture is not only of the author but also of holding his book. However, when I click on the image, it brings me to the university, assuming he works or worked, but no citation is attached.

Overall:

I think the article has great potential and a lot of new information that can be offered to improve the original article. With an additional section of the author, and some further details and citations, it’s great! Looking forward to seeing the final.