User:Jillian DeGrie/The Factory (book)/Rlyantonio Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jillian DeGrie, FatimaRazzaq, Nmorgan5


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jillian DeGrie/The Factory (book)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The lead section overall is great, and includes relevant, up-to-date information about the work without being too wordy.
 * The first sentence of the lead section includes the work title and author, but I think it could be expanded to include additional information that might be important at first glance like the publisher, date of publication, and information about translation. Basically I think the second sentence could look great combined with the first sentence to offer more information while still not being too wordy. Also FYI there are some grammatical errors!
 * Wikipedia suggests adding a brief description of the major sections of your article. I know that's something my group still needs to do too, after being pointed out to us by our peer reviewers.
 * Lots of good stuff in your lead. Concise information, objective, neutral tone, and correct work title formatting and citations.

Content


 * Great content section! Your details are relevant and up-to-date, especially in the plot summary section. Be sure to check for grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout for a more enjoyable read.
 * I really appreciate those photos, they really add an extra level of depth to the article. ;)
 * Your sections were well-developed, with no redundant content or obvious content gaps. Great job!
 * That's a great decision to create bullets with descriptions for the character section. Information about the characters is easily accessible and the descriptions complement the details in other sections.

Tone and Balance


 * Your content seems neutral and does not attempt to persuade me of any argument of interpretation.

Looks good. Great job!

Sources and References


 * Your sources look great. They seem varied, notable, and plentiful.
 * Your content seems properly sourced, and I did not notice any claims that were not properly supported with citations.
 * Overall good job, your sources are current, properly formatted, and your links work.

Organization


 * Overall your content is well-written, except for various grammatical errors throughout.
 * I enjoyed that your article was robust and included many details about characters and plot without becoming too wordy.
 * For the most part your content flowed smoothly.
 * Your sections are clear and contribute to the smooth flow of the article.

Images and Media


 * As indicated previously, your images add additional depth to your article. While it looks like you couldn't use a photo of the actual work (I know it's hard), your chosen media does "enhance understanding of the topic," which is what Wikipedia says to aim for.
 * For the image descriptions, I might remove the words "A visual representation." If there is a formatting rule I am not aware of then feel free to disregard, but to me it seems like everyone knows they are visual representations without having to specifically point it out in the descriptions. Overall great job.

For New Articles


 * Your sources were well-researched, varied and notable. Also, nice that you linked to the Wikipedia article for Proletarian literature. I got sidetracked reading that article for a few minutes, and it adds relevant information that expanded my understanding of your article.

Overall Impressions


 * This was a very well-written article. Your content was concise but was also of sufficient length to provide most relevant details.
 * I might like to see a translation section that gives more information about the dates of original publication and translation. It could also include more information about the translator and, since translators often have to take significant creative license, it could showcase any interesting structure or wordage elements resulting from translation.