User talk:LofgrenSFSUenglish465/The Strange Bird: A Borne Story

Hi Kirsten - - I'm not sure if this draft is ready for peer review. The sourcing still looks thin. What do you plan on adding/continuing? ProfHanley (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback 3/7
I see that you've added two new small sections with sourcing. That's good. However, I'm not sure how the "Ecocriticism" section adds anything new to the "Thematic Interpretation." And, I don't really understand the "Anthropocene" section. I think this is more about handling sources than the sources themselves - - though I think another source or two might help. I.e. can you explain/paraphrase/summarize the "Ecocriticism" and "Anthropocene" arguments/sources a bit more fully so that I get a better picture of what these interpretations are and why they are significant/useful/valuable. ProfHanley (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback 4/12
Green light for peer review! ProfHanley (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead: You have a couple punctuation errors, mixing up It's with Its. Other than that the added sentence is a good addition to the lead. Perhaps if possible add one more sentence to flesh out the book's summary.

Plot: Excellent expansion on important details not specified in the original article.

All in all, this has relatively few errors aside from punctuation and grammar. However, I would reconsider a couple of your sources where you pull from less reliable sources, such as your New Yorker source. I recommend doing a second dig for any other possible replacements that are more viable. Very well done. Chimericmacandcheese (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ytan11sf's Peer Review
Lead: The lead introduce the article well. One suggestion is that the author might want to include the influence (such as awards, volume sold, etc) so that readers can understand the significant of the article.

Content: A lot of content is added and they are very useful for the reader. One critique is that the Thematic Interpretations section might have been stressed too much. In my *personal opinion*, it is most welcomed that the interpretations of the story are introduced, but deep analysis of said interpretations should be avoided. Besides that, the author might want to consider adding the impact of the book.

Tone and Balance: The tone of this sentence "The ways in which we differentiate species i.e. how we think of differences between humans and animals can only be understood in a context of ecological violence, and this novella gives an anecdotal example of new ways of thinking about kinship with nature" might appear persuasive.

Source and Reference: The sources of the article are reliable.

Organization: The organization is generally good although there is a few grammatical error here and there. The last paragraph of the plot summary might be best to be integrated into other paragraphs rather than an independent paragraph so that it is more coherent to the story.

Overall: The article is strong overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LofgrenSFSUenglish465 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)