User talk:Crepting/The Employees

Your article is very well structured and put together! For the most part, I felt like it did a good job explaining what The Employees was all about, and your lead was very clear and to the point. One thing I would add to the setting section would a part about the time period. I gathered that it took place in the future, but is there any indication of how far in the future? I think even one or two sentences here would sound good! Also, in the senses section, you mentioned that at one point, the skin did unusual things. I would add an example of what the skin did here for more clarity because I was a little confused there. Altogether though, it was a very good article! KenBoy02 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review
The Lead is clear and concise, but it lacks a brief description of the Allegory and Themes, Inspiration, and Critical Reception sections.

In the Six-Thousand Ship sub-section, the word “strange” should be removed from sentences four and five. Unless the source called the objects strange, the use of an adjective seems partisan. Also, “mirroring the novel’s inspiration: a 2018 art installation by Lea Guldditte Hestelund” should be removed because there is an Inspiration section that addresses that aspect. “Throughout the book” should be removed from the Technology sub-section because it is redundant.

The article's content is informative, and there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, although specific interpretations are included in the Allegory and Themes section. In the Transhumanism sub-section, remove the quotations around add-ons. If that term is from the book, then quotations are unnecessary. This applies for the word in all sections. In the Senses sub-section, remove or change “disturbingly” and “in a manner that invokes trypophobia” from the second-to-last sentence. In the Inspiration section, “in fact” should be removed from the third sentence. Unless direct quotes are allowed on Wikipedia, the last sentence of the Inspiration sentence should end with “of a paraphrasing of a quote from Barbara Kruger.” The same notion applies to the Critical Reception section.

All facts in the article are backed up by a source, but three of the sources (7, 8, 10) are primary sources. There are ten sources cited, and the citation information is complete except for the third source which does not have a working link.

Overall, the article is well-written, but the Eggs and Parenting sub-section could be more clearly written, and there are a few grammatical errors throughout the article.

The article is well-organized and reflects the major/interesting points of the novel. The article does not include any images, but may benefit from one.

There is no info box, but the addition of an info box would improve the article. Agt3j (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review- Hannah Harris
Lead: Concise and informative.

Summary: No comma needed after "(The Six Thousand Ship)". The mention of "the objects" is very choppy and confusing. I would explain what the objects are first and then talk about the corporation studying the members of the ship. Are the humans and humanoids being studied? Are the "two factions" humans v. humanoids or humans v. the impartial surveyors?

Structure: Very clear. I like the mention of the theory about the corporation getting the papers jumbled. Nice citations. Why is there a random ">"?

Characters: I think the use of a paragraph instead of a list works well here because the characters are largely unnamed. I also like the mention of the blurred line between human and humanoid.

The Six-Thousand ship: This section seems to leave the reader hanging. I have a dull picture of what the ship looks like and I'm still confused about the objects. It may be beneficial to add another section talking about the objects themselves. I would expand the description of the ship into about four sentences and add another "objects" section that gives their origin (New Discovery), examples, and then possibly list the general effects. I think the portion describing the interviews should be deleted, as this was talked about in more detail previously. Another possibility that could clear things up is to make another subsection below "The Six-Thousand Ship" titled "The Exhibition Room" where you go into detail about the room and explain the objects are housed there. Also, why is it called the Six-Thousand Ship?

Technology: The use of technology section builds on the central idea of the blurred line between biological and mechanical. I think it works well where it is.

Allegory and Themes: These sections wrap up the mentions of themes previously very well and leave the reader with a better understanding of the purpose for the novel. The only thing I would say is you may be patrolled for not having cites on the first two sentences of both the Senses and Eggs sections, as that could be seen as "original research".

Inspiration: This is quite and interesting section that I think is important to understanding the background. I would suggest deleting the mention of the inspiration for the book in the "Six-Thousand Ship" section and talk about that more in the actual inspiration section.

Reception and Awards: These are fine and serve their purpose, but "Awards" should probably be a Heading rather than Sub-heading. But the way you have it works as well.

Overall: I think the beginning of the article needs more clarification. As someone who has not read this book, it' very confusing at first. The content in the other sections is very useful and well-written. Everything except for the places I mentioned in Themes is cited extremely well. Well done! Hannahharris082 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)