User:Hprice1986/Tender is the Flesh/Jed5z Peer Review

Lead:
1. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly

describes the article's topic?

2. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

3. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

4. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Comments on the lead:

The lead acts as a good introduction to the article, giving a brief overview of the book and its reception as well as a few themes. My only difficulty when reading it (and parts of the plot summary) was the fact that it used terminology from the book that was not explained until much later in the article. I had no idea what "head" meant while reading the lead or the summary and had to sorta guess its meaning until the "euphemism" part of the theme section explained it. It might be helpful to provide a couple word explanation as to what the term means earlier. Besides that, the lead does not include information not present in the article and is fairly concise.

Content:
1. Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

2. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Comments on Content:

All content on the page is relevant to the topic, and nothing seemed out of place.

Tone and Balance:
1. Is the article written in a neutral tone?

2. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular

position/interpretation?

3. Are there viewpoints/interpretations that are overrepresented, or

underrepresented?

4. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away

from another?

Comments on Tone and balance:

There are multiple phrases used throughout the plot summary which came across as reader analysis or partial tone. Phrases such as "harsh words" and "seems to be ______" add to the description of the novel but seemed out of place for an impartial overview of the novel. Otherwise, the article did not come across as biased in any way or over-representative of a certain aspect of the novel.

Sources and References:
1. Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of

''information? At least one source per paragraph, except the summary.''

2. Are there at least 6-8 sources cited?

3. Is the citation information complete?

''4. Check a few links. Do they work?''

Comments on Sources and references:

All 8 cited references and links lead to reputable and helpful sources on the novel.

Organization:
1. Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

2. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

3. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into at least 4 sections, including a

summary, that reflect the major/interesting points of the novel?

Comments on Organization:

I found quite a few grammatical errors throughout the draft, and left a minor edit of the ones I found, although it could still use a proofread. The plot summary seemed to switch between verb tenses which made the flow awkward. The use of bold names throughout the summary seemed like an odd aesthetic choice to me that I have not seen in any other Wikipedia article, and it was a bit inconsistent as not all instances of names were bold ("Marcos" in the third and twelfth paragraphs of the summary were instances that I could spot). The summary could perhaps be made more concise by reducing redundant language, such as the phrase "again, questioning his job" which seems pretty obvious given the context.

Images and Media:
1. Does the article include at least 1 image?

2. Are images well-captioned to relate it to the article?

3. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Comments on Images/Media:

No images or media were present on the draft at the time of my review.

Info box:
1. Is there an infobox?

2. Does the info box contain relevant information: title, author, translator, language

of original text, publisher, date of publication (original and trans into English)?

Comments on Infobox:

No infobox was present on the draft at the times of my review.

Overall Impressions:
Overall, my major gripes were really only minor organizational and tonal inconsistencies. The article was very informative on the topic, and I am properly disturbed by the book y'all chose to read.