User:Jed5z/The Hole (2014 book)/Sheepies Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jed5z, Rnh3u, SammyD


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jed5z/The Hole (2014 book)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Clear introductory sentence.
 * Is the fourth sentence needed in the Lead paragraph, since the information is specific and given in the info box?
 * "A Japanese woman newly made a housewife" seems to be strangely worded.
 * Major themes are successfully and briefly mentioned in the Lead.

Content


 * The content appears relevant to the topic.
 * Many details are provided in the plot summary; it seems too many details at first, but many of these details are given meaning in the Character and Theme sections.
 * The emphasis on gender roles may aid in dealing with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * The use of "prestigious" in reference to the novel's award may be perceived as a value judgement that dissolves some neutrality.
 * Otherwise, the discussion seemed neutral. Themes appeared to be represented as they are in the text, not as the Wiki authors would have them.

Sources and References


 * Many citations are given throughout the article, with the exception of the plot summary. This section also gave my group difficulty.
 * The links I clicked on worked.
 * Not all of the sources are simple book reviews, which is nice. Variation is helpful.

Organization


 * There were some odd quotation marks used in the Reception section. Take another look at your direct quotes and adjust to single quotes or italics where needed.
 * I might split the Plot Summary and Key Characters into their own main sections of the article.
 * The article was easy to read for the most part and divided in clear sections.

Images and Media


 * N/A; I am assuming that images will be added after the article is published for copyright rules? We were running into issues with that as well :)

For New Articles Only


 * This article does have more than three sources.
 * The topic is notable. The award proposes such.
 * Good structure and info box.

Overall Impressions


 * A well-written and thoroughly detailed article.
 * I would focus on possibly trimming down any unnecessary components of the plot summary if possible.
 * Theme section was particularly nice.