User:HannSel19/On Such a Full Sea/Kgroft Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

HannSel19


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:HannSel19/On Such a Full Sea


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead is concise and well structured. The opening line is direct and lets us know what to expect in the article. It has a handful of good links, as well as reliable citations and resources, to help support the reader's understanding of the article before leading us into the plot and structure of the overall article.

Content:

All the content in the article is up to date and is fully relevant to the topic in the article. They did a wonderful job of organization the different aspects of the novel to help the reader completely understand various important points about the novel.

Tone and Balance:

The article is neutral, void of any bias or means to persuade in anyway.

Sources and References:

They have 9 different creditable sources sited within their article that help support the information written about the novel. They come from varying diverse sources to avoid any bias.

Organization:

I think the best thing about this article it its organization. The author did a wonderful job of taking their time to piece together a well formulated article. With six section including background and history, plot summary, character, genre, style, and reception, this article does not miss any opportunity to review any aspect that could be dissected in terms of critique. GREAT JOB!

Media and Images:

Missing this bit.

New Article:

With 9 reliable sources, I'd say the amount is exhaustive. The pattern and form of the article exceeds most articles I've read on wiki. They did a phenomenal job!

Overall:

No improvements that I could see. This was such a good read and well organized. Perhaps an image of the novel would be good.