User talk:Azurhellen/The Iliac Crest/Char.daigle Peer Review

Peer Review of "The Iliac Crest"
Lead: The Lead does clearly and concisely state what the article will be about through the naming of the book and the author/translator. It also discusses the publication dates of the novel in its original language, Spanish, and the date when it was translated into English. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections through the quick detailed summary of some of the book's content. Through the few sentence summary, it could be inferred that a plot would be detailed, characters would be described, and themes be mentioned. Information that is in the Lead that is later not found in the article include the awards the novel received, but I do not see that as an issue as there is no need to have a whole section dedicated to the awards--unless of course a detailed explanation of the wards is wanted. I do not think the Lead is overly detailed. It thoroughly describes the key points of the novel in it's few sentence summary of the plot, but is concise as it does not share too much detail nor unneeded wording.

Content: The content in the article is relevant to the topic. The plot is a detailed summary of the novel's contents, taking the reader through the main points of the story.The character section gives an in-depth description of each main character in the novel including who they are, their job, their whereabouts and positions in the novel, etc. The themes section clearly points out the motifs within the novel and their purposes are as thematic elements. I do not think there is a need for the author section in this article. The article is meant to be over the book, not the author. It does not seem to be pertinent knowledge. The translation section does not really talk about the translated novel, but the translator herself. Again, I do not think this is needed because the article is meant to be a discussion over the novel, not the author and translator. I believe those two individuals should already have or later have their on Wikipedia page.

Tone and Balance: I found the article to be written neutrally. The Lead and contents clearly state evident facts from the novel, but when I read the Themes section, I did notice considerable interpretation with citations, so I wondered if those were your own interpretations or interpretations found in sources. If they're your own, I'd suggest trying to find credible evidence of those interpretations.

Sources and References: While I did see the use of eight sources, I did not see them incorporated in the Themes and Character sections. I think it would be a good idea to have a source backing up the descriptions and interpretations you are presenting. The links I clicked on worked and look to be very informative.

Organization: The article itself was organized well. I do think, though, that if you were to keep the author and translation sections that they should be put right after the leading intro section. It just seems to flow better as those two sections are describing the external parts of the novel more than the internal.

Images and Media: The image of the author is the only one on the page, and it does seem to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I do think that an image pertaining to the novel itself, rather than the author would be better because again, this page is on the book, not the author.

Info box: There is an info box present on the page and does look to have all the correct information within it, in an organized and concise manner.

````char.daigle