User:Ggarrette3/Return to the Dark Valley/Emma.mae16 Peer Review

General info

 * Ggarrette3 and Calebconard
 * User:Ggarrette3/Return to the Dark Valley

Lead

 * Glancing at your lead section concerned me because it was a lot longer than mine. However, considering the length of the novel, the length of the lead section is understandable. All the information was pertinent. Introducing the layout of the book and the essential characters provided helpful context before the reader jumped into reading about the plot. After reading the lead section, I thought to myself, "I want to read this book!" A book with a setting of four countries, one of them being French? I love that! Even though we are not supposed to be persuading, I think making the book sound interesting to the reader is a mark of a well written article.

Content

 * Excellent job on making the content relevant and interesting. There didn't seem to be any superfluous information or anything I could detect that needed adding.

Tone and Balance

 * Based on the content that seemed to comprise your chosen novel, this does not sound like a book either of you would have picked off the shelf for a leisurely Sunday afternoon read. It appears there were some distasteful topics, with stories of people who have lived very different lives compared to the three of us, but y'all did a nice job of staying academic. You didn't put in your personal opinions or try to twist it to fit your beliefs. This can be a challenge, so well done. Since you were not allowed to include your personal opinions in this article, I look forward to hearing you tell me what YOU thought later. Y'all also did a good job of making it sound as if only one of you wrote the article. I could tell the difference, but I think that's simply because I know you both kind of well. :)

Sources and References

 * I think we are supposed to have eight sources. Your reference list only included seven. You might have simply not transferred one over from your bibliography. Worth a second check. Also, one of your sources had an addendum that said "why this book should win". It might be legitimate, but it sounds a little sketchy.

Organization

 * Your sentence structure was varied which added to the ease of the reader's experience, and I didn't see many grammatical errors at all . . . not that I'm surprised with Mr. Grammar Master on the team. "That" was used a few times in the "Plot" and "Themes and Topics" sections. This is mostly an unnecessary word we use in speaking as a filler word. My mom used to edit it out of my papers all the time until I finally caught the hint. Also, make sure when you do use "that", it isn't referring to a human. Use "who" instead.
 * I really like the inclusion of the "Film Adaptations" section. How cool - you wrote a wikipedia article on something that could potentially become a movie! Also, "cinematic works"? I feel like that's a Caleb turn of phrase. I like it. On the other hand, "connective tissue" in "Themes and Topics"? That's a Grayson anatomy term for sure. Neither of you made a "word salad", but your vernacular was collegiate nonetheless.
 * You might make your last paragraph of the "Characters" section be formatted like the other paragraphs in said section (you know, with Arthur's name bolded at the beginning of the first sentence?). That's the only suggestion I have, here. I struggled knowing exactly how much information to give within each character's paragraph, not wanting to repeat the plot section but also wanting to give a full picture. You guys navigated this difficulty beautifully. I felt the information in the "Characters" section augmented and clarified the plot for the reader barely managing to keep the names straight!

Images and Media

 * I like the addition of the image. The author even is facing the correct direction for being situated on the far right side of the page. Y'all even adhered to photography rules (maybe on accident?)!

Overall Impressions

 * The article read well despite the many plot lines, settings, and characters which could have stood in the way of your article being comprehensible.
 * I am frequently impressed by you two. The goofy guys who guffaw over a drug rug can also write and publish an academic article on the world wide web; that's quite an impressive combination. Well done.