User:Rlyantonio/Slave Old Man/SammyD 621 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rylantonio


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rlyantonio/Slave Old Man


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The Lead sentence sounds weird because "Slave Old Man" isn't the first thing said. Almost any article begins with a brief explanation of its subject, and with the subject as the forefront of the sentence. It should be something like "Slave Old Man, a historical novella fiction, is Linda Coverdale's 2018 translation of Esclave Vieil Homme Et Le Molosse, originally published in French in 1997, by Patrick Chamoiseau." The content of the sentence is fine though, it's just worded in a strange way.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - You should also definitely add more information in the Lead section, maybe add some information about the plot or general history of the book.

 Content 


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, there is no irrelevant content in this article. I like the section about Editions and Translation. The summary seems way too brief. You should definitely expand the Old Man's journey in the woods. What were the hallucinations? The wall street journal source you used talks about it and it sounds crazy cool. You could also just expound on the Old Man's encounter with the snake, the sinkhole, and the crabs. I would want to add the Mastiff as a character in the 'Character' section because it is mentioned in the article many times. You should also add more content to the 'History of Creole Slavery' section. It should include maybe what daily-life was like or how slaves were treated so the reader could better understand the Old Man's life. The 'structure' section is very small, you need to mention the writing style. One of the reviews you include is, “The prose is so electrifyingly synesthetic that, on more than one occasion, I found myself stopping to rub my eyes in disbelief.” From this and some of the quotes of the book I saw in your sources, the writing-style seems to be one of the coolest things about this book. This is the most important thing in my opinion, you need to include the crazy writing-style. Lastly, in the 'Critical Acclaim' section, be careful quoting that much. I would try and write some information that are not quotes. Try finding similar aspects of the book that are praised (like the writing-style) and saying something like "The writing-style and the surrealism of the book are highly praised." and then put some quotes. They are very good choice of reviews though.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The content is all up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - There is a mention of a man named Édouard Glissant in the structure section which needs a source.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the content is very unbiased and doesn't take any side. Just lists information. I will say the description of the mastiff as a 'relentless beast' is a bit much, but you can put a source or just dial it back and it's fine.

 Sources and References 


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes, the content accurately reflects the information from the sources. However, there are not enough citations of the sources. There are no citations in the summary, character, or structure sections. In the reviews of the book that are used as sources, there is information about the plot which can be cited in the summary section and character section. And of course the writing-style has plenty of mention in the reviews which can be added later.
 * I would add a link to the Emancipation Proclamation that is mentioned in the 'History of Creole Slavery' section.
 * You also have the source from the New York Times listed twice in the references
 * In the 'Editions and Translations' section, the source does not match all the information written.

 Organization 


 * Is the content added well-written? - I'd say the content is written in a concise, simple fashion. Very good.
 * Does the content have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did find a few errors. In the 'Summary' section, "As he removes his blindfold", there is no mention to a blindfold prior to this so it doesn't make sense. Also in this section it says "The old slave dies in his journey", while it should be "on his journey." Lastly, in the Character section, "The trusted slave had drove his master when the vicious dog was purchased from the port and had witnessed the relentless beast capture every runaway slave." I'm assuming the "Trusted Slave" is the Old Man, and I would change this to clarify. I've read this a few times and I have no idea what "drove his master" means. I'm guessing it's a typo or something but I don't understand it so I would change this to make it clear.
 * Is the content added well-organized? - Yes, the sections are all important to the topic.

 Overall Impressions 


 * What are the strengths of the content added? - You have good sources and you have a good structure for the article. Pretty much all the work for making a Wikipedia page so it's great.
 * How can the content added be improved? - You need to add more information to the summary, structure, and history section. You also need to change the Lead section once this is all done. This takes a lot of work and you all did a great job :)