User:ZNThomas08/The Lost Soul/Matakeva Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jaysbtg, KenBoy02, ZNThomas08


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ZNThomas08/The Lost Soul


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

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Sure; it could be written more elegantly, but it's understandable.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, if a bit vague.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes; the sources seem to be focused on the author, publisher, or critical reception of the book.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes; the sources seem to originate from within the past decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm concerned that information about the illustrations and translations are given too much weight in comparison to actual analysis of the book's contents.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. However, you used direct quotes from book critics/analysts, and I'm not sure if you're allowed to do that.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, which is good.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like I still just don't know very much about your book.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, which is good.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears so.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) From the few sources I opened, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. The sources each appear to have a purpose, and seem to have been specifically choses to inform about different aspects of the book.
 * Are the sources current? Yes; the sources seem to originate from within the past decade.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I mean, you have Polish AND American sources, which I guess is good. Most authors are literary critics or analysts, but that makes sense considering the subject. Seems good.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Y'all did a decent job with finding sources. It's not easy to find scholarly articles on books which are still so new.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The ones I clicked on worked. I didn't check them all tho....

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No. The writing is muddled and unclear. Rearrange your sentences so that they sound nicer. Somehow your summary includes both some very specific (yet unnecessary) details, as well as vague statements. For instance, you include the random detail "as if he was moving across a page in a math exercise book", but you don't explicate how exactly souls are "unable to keep up". Unable to keep up with what? You say people are "accidentally leaving [their souls] behind". How? How does a soul "lose it's head"? Also you add the detail of watches and suitcases in one of the very last sentences, but don't explain their significance. The ending of the story is also vague. Does he just chill in the cottage forever then? Do he and his soul reinhabit the same body, or do they exist separately?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. Y'all be typing the numbers out as numbers instead of words. Fix that. The word "Format" in the very second sentence should be differentiated from the other words using quotation marks. Also, when I looked the publishing house up it also showed up as "FORMAT", not "Format".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? All of the sections that you chose made sense, but there is more to be desired. I'm assuming that you couldn't find enough sufficient content to create other well-rounded sections.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? I think so??
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No, but I'm being nitpicky here. I know y'all don't have an endless amount of resources to choose from due to how recently this book was published.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? It has adequate sectioning.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, but you could probably link more, specifically the "Fiction Bologna Ragazzi Prize" (if it actually has a wikipedia page about it of course).