User talk:KBMathews/sandbox

Hi! For starters this seemed to be pretty well written. The organization of the piece was very good. It was very easy to read and was very structured. it made it easy to see the different working parts and it made it very easy to get to the section I would need most if I had a question revolving around one of your outlined sources. Your tone does a good job of remaining neutral as well. That being said, I think there are a couple of places of repetitiveness that I think you could switch up a little to help the flow of the passages. Changing the amount of times the name Maggie is said could also help, in the initial scan I was surprised by how many times it was used. using a pronoun might be beneficial in some places. The only other edit i could suggest would be maybe take a look at the intro section to see if you can beef it up and make it more tailored to the content of the wiki page. I like the organization of your article and will certainly keep it in mind for my own added sections of my article. Great Job!

Hayley's Peer Review
What does the article do well? I'm very impressed by both the length and breadth of information you have added about the novel's themes. You kept a very neutral tone and gave each theme an equal amount of information and work. Overall the section reads very professionally and I feel that I learned a lot about a novel that I have never read!

What changes would you suggest? I like in the naturalism section the way you identify exactly what that theme means. I think your sections on Determinism and possibly Hypocrisy could also benefit from this clarification at the beginning of their sections. Additionally, in terms of formatting I believe the issue is that each heading needs to be moved up one. So that "Themes" will be the main heading. The subheadings also do not need colons. Your tone is kept very neutral which is good, but the text boarders on choppy and slightly hard to read. maybe work on integrating sentences a bit more. These changes would all just help with slight clarity to the article.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve? Perhaps to be sure the use of sources is balanced. Source 6 and 7 seem to have been used the least in your section. However, I do not feel that the article needs major work!

What could be applicable to my own article? I'm most inspired by the amount of themes and depth of information in each themes section. I will be taking that into account for my own article additions.Haykim (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)