User talk:Kelc019/article draft

Megan O'Reilly Peer Review
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Everything seems to have a place, so far.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' The only area which could be reviewed for this reason is the Background. There is one point in which it gives a reason why the book was not as well recieved as others that the authors wrote. Not sure if this is on neutral side or not, but its something to double check.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can tell.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' No citations yet.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' Not yet.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?''' N/A

Peer Review Format
'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' -	The first few bits of the draft give the authors names, description of the novel and what genre it is part of, and gives some facts that seem to be important aspects of the history of novel. -	The plot summary is well put together, unsure if there is more to the story but as of right now it gave a good description of novel. -	Background is good. -	Publication History is good, important information about the novel in pop culture.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' -	The only change I think would be helpful at this point is maybe seeing if "publication history” should be incorporated into the background or if it should stay as its own section.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article -	Don’t forget to cite where you got the info from!

'''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!''' -	I think seeing your part for publication history might be helpful to include in my own wiki page, I didn’t think about the importance of information like this.

Mooreilly (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead
Lead is good -- I’m left with very few questions. It’s very concise and especially with this section, I think short direct sentences are best. One question I am left with is why there’s a parenthetical for the title in Russian. If it was originally published in Russia or in the Russian language at least, then would be worthy of noting in the lead section, maybe when it was translated and published in the U.S., etc.

Structure
Sections are chosen well, and in an order that makes sense. It seems that background and publication history as sections could be merged into one, or publication and translation(s). The plot summary appears to give all the necessary information and is mostly concise. However, I might suggest that the sentence mentioning each character to be narrowed down or split into multiple sentences. The background section is an interesting aspect about the book, if there’s more odd information (political relation, etc.) it would be worthy of thickening out that section. The publication history section is also interesting to include with the numerous title variations. I’d suggest (similarly as mentioned for the lead section) adding information about when it was translated or at the least explicitly state that it was published in Russia before the U.S. The sections-to-be look notable as well, there isn’t a references section created though and I would suggest throwing that in there as well. I’d also suggest going over the whole article to check for and eliminate a few grammatical/syntax errors that I noticed (specifically in the summary and background section).

Balance/Neutrality
The article (so far) is written strictly objective -- it’s only informative with neutral information. I imagine it might be tougher to be objective when writing for the reception section but it hasn’t been written yet.

Sourcing
No sources have been included yet but there are parentheticals for to-be citations, and I believe that to be a good way to draft the article to later go back and throw all of the citations in there at once. However, I might suggest putting all of your sources at the bottom of the page so you don’t have to go far when citing later, as well as to have editors to check and comment on sources before publishing (if interested refer to my article draft to see what I mean). Cingham (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)