User talk:Ggarrette3/Return to the Dark Valley

Please leave peer reviews here. Love you guys!

General info Lead Content Tone and Balance Sources and References Organization Images and Media Overall Impressions
 * Ggarrette3 and Calebconard
 * User:Ggarrette3/Return to the Dark Valley
 * Glancing at your lead section concerned me because it was a lot longer than mine. However, considering the length of the novel, the length of the lead section is understandable. All the information was pertinent. Introducing the layout of the book and the essential characters provided helpful context before the reader jumped into reading about the plot. After reading the lead section, I thought to myself, "I want to read this book!" A book with a setting of four countries, one of them being French? I love that! Even though we are not supposed to be persuading, I think making the book sound interesting to the reader is a mark of a well written article.
 * Excellent job on making the content relevant and interesting. There didn't seem to be any superfluous information or anything I could detect that needed adding.
 * Based on the content that seemed to comprise your chosen novel, this does not sound like a book either of you would have picked off the shelf for a leisurely Sunday afternoon read. It appears there were some distasteful topics, with stories of people who have lived very different lives compared to the three of us, but y'all did a nice job of staying academic. You didn't put in your personal opinions or try to twist it to fit your beliefs. This can be a challenge, so well done. Since you were not allowed to include your personal opinions in this article, I look forward to hearing you tell me what YOU thought later. Y'all also did a good job of making it sound as if only one of you wrote the article. I could tell the difference, but I think that's simply because I know you both kind of well. :)
 * I think we are supposed to have eight sources. Your reference list only included seven. You might have simply not transferred one over from your bibliography. Worth a second check. Also, one of your sources had an addendum that said "why this book should win". It might be legitimate, but it sounds a little sketchy.
 * Your sentence structure was varied which added to the ease of the reader's experience, and I didn't see many grammatical errors at all . . . not that I'm surprised with Mr. Grammar Master on the team. "That" was used a few times in the "Plot" and "Themes and Topics" sections. This is mostly an unnecessary word we use in speaking as a filler word. My mom used to edit it out of my papers all the time until I finally caught the hint. Also, make sure when you do use "that", it isn't referring to a human. Use "who" instead.
 * I really like the inclusion of the "Film Adaptations" section. How cool - you wrote a wikipedia article on something that could potentially become a movie! Also, "cinematic works"? I feel like that's a Caleb turn of phrase. I like it. On the other hand, "connective tissue" in "Themes and Topics"? That's a Grayson anatomy term for sure. Neither of you made a "word salad", but your vernacular was collegiate nonetheless.
 * You might make your last paragraph of the "Characters" section be formatted like the other paragraphs in said section (you know, with Arthur's name bolded at the beginning of the first sentence?). That's the only suggestion I have, here. I struggled knowing exactly how much information to give within each character's paragraph, not wanting to repeat the plot section but also wanting to give a full picture. You guys navigated this difficulty beautifully. I felt the information in the "Characters" section augmented and clarified the plot for the reader barely managing to keep the names straight!
 * I like the addition of the image. The author even is facing the correct direction for being situated on the far right side of the page. Y'all even adhered to photography rules (maybe on accident?)!
 * The article read well despite the many plot lines, settings, and characters which could have stood in the way of your article being comprehensible.
 * I am frequently impressed by you two. The goofy guys who guffaw over a drug rug can also write and publish an academic article on the world wide web; that's quite an impressive combination. Well done.
 * Love you both! Can't wait to be reunited!

Emma.mae16 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Emma.mae16

Peer Review
Lead: The lead is clear and concise. You guys did a good job of highlighting and summarizing all the main topics in your article.

Content: All of the content is relevant, and there is nothing that needs to be removed.

Tone and Balance: The article is written in a very neutral, academic tone. The only part that could be considered analytical is the discussion of the themes, but each statement that is analytical is cited from another source, letting me know that you guys are not providing any personal analysis. There is no bias, and the article is very balanced, clearly explaining each topic without over-explaining.

Sources and References: The seven sources listed seem to be reliable and were used appropriately in the article. The links that I checked worked, but for the first three sources, error codes are showing related to the URLs and dates of the sources. That probably needs to be fixed.

Organization: The article is very well-written and flowed nicely. There were only a couple of grammatical things that I would change: there are too many and’s in the sentence “The novel takes place in several different countries…” in the lead, and in the first sentence of the plot section, I would change the “2” to the word “two.” There was also one sentence that confused me in the themes and topics section, talking about poetry: “… as Rimbaud’s life is exposed and explained, the reader is shown how much poetry and fellow poets also shared his life.” I think this is saying that poetry and fellow poets were a major influence in his life, but the way it’s phrased makes it say that his poetry and colleagues shared his life. Overall, those few things did not detract from the article, which was very well put together. The separation of information in each section, such as that of the plot into part one, part two, and the epilogue, created a clean structure. I was impressed by how clearly you explained the overlapping plot lines and character arcs, with there being so many of them.

Images and Media: The article includes two images that are appropriately captioned. Both images adhere to copyright regulations.

Info box: There is an infobox, and it is fantastic. Includes all the relevant information.

Great job, Caleb and Grayson! Ril.kah (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great job overall, guys!

Lead Section Overall, the lead section did a good job at shortening the longer plot summary into a concise lead section and introducing the main themes.

Content The content is relevant to the article. However, I would suggest adding a translator or author section to this page.

Tone and Balance This article is written in a neutral tone and does not appear biased to any particular viewpoint. That being said, the final paragraph in the themes section where postmodernism, racism, and terrorism are mentioned needs to be expanded upon as those viewpoints are not further examined like the other themes mentioned in that section.

Sources and References Each section has a citation; however, I believe McRae asked for 8 sources, and there are only 7 here. In addition, the book itself does not count as a secondary source, so you might want to look at adding a few more sources.

Organization The article is well-written, and it is overall well-organized. The film adaptation section is pretty short, so I would again suggest adding an author or translator section. This would also be a way to add more sources to the page. Just a suggestion :)

Images There are images with captions. Good job. Perhaps work on finding an image of the cover that fits within the copyright guidelines to add to the info box

Info Box There is an info box with the meaningful information.

Good job, guys! Azurhellen (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You guys have got some great advice from your peer reviews. I would emphasize that you should make Rimbaud a character with his own section. You can add to your sources with some Rimbaud information such as this one: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/29/rebel-rebel  Be very careful in the THEMES that each idea has a source - remember that you do not analyze - you report. Most of all, FANTASTIC visuals! You guys get the prize for a visually pleasing article. Well done!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Yseut229* (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)