User talk:Masonbissada/sandbox

Okay. Looks good. Forward. . ..

Sourcing
Mason - - can you include the full bibliographic info for your sources, rather than only the ebsco/sfsu library web links? Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Kasside :)
Lead: Your lead is pretty short, it doesn't really say what the comic is about at all except that it's an epic fantasy, I would give a very brief summary, in your model article they give a much longer lead section, I don't think yours needs to be as long but it definitely needs more.

Structure: I know the model article has the publication history section up higher but with your article I actually think it would work better being right before reception that way the summary themes and characters all sort of go together so you get the sections about the actual story then you get the sections about the like more technical side of it all. I would also put more detail into your summary section, I don't know how focused the story is on the single character Maika but she's the only one you mention, maybe mention the other characters or mentions some of the other arcs that happen in the story if at least briefly. The last sentence of the section can probably also be moved to a different section, probably the publication history or could be used to lengthen the lead. Publication history section is good but definitely need some sources cited in there. Themes is good! Maybe try to expand a little though? Maybe see if there's been any other articles about it by someone other than Liu? or maybe an article about the genre as a whole and like typical themes, that might be good. The characters section for your model article has citations on it so maybe work on that? it looks like they just site from the comic itself so that shouldn't be too hard. Last three sections all look good!!!

Balance/Neutrality: Your article handles this really well!! You often cite a source or mention Liu whenever you give information that could be dangerous of being biased or not neutral, etc., good job!!

Sourcing: Sources that you have are good, but you definitely need more. Did you try looking at google scholar? I know it can be hard to find sources I had trouble.

What you have so far is definitely good!! It's not so much you need to redo or take things out it's just that you need to add in some sources, so that's good!!! I would say adding some sources and extending the lead are the only issues you have. KassideSE (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

William Swackhamer Peer Review
Overall, I think you've done a good job of organizing your topic. You seem to know your subject well and I was interested in reading more about Monstress.

Lead: Your lead is a bit short that only explains a little of your topic. In the model, Saga, the author gives a more detailed overview of the influences for the series. I think you could expand your lead and bring up the last paragraph of the summary section starting with "Liu first introduced the story to Takeda in 2013."

Structure: The structure is well formatted and put in a logical order, although I would suggest putting Themes and Characters first after Summary, and then Publication History. The summary describes a lot about Monstress in a concise paragraph. Well said! For the Publication History, this feels more like a bulleted list. It feels like there is more that could be written in this section. The Character section is well-organized, from the most important lead character to the sub-characters. It's good that you put the award section, showing how the comic series has been recognized over the years. This makes it seem legitimate without introducing bias.

Balance/Neutrality: The article is basing information on real people and not unnamed sources. In the Reception section, it seems one sided. Are there any other opinions available that are not written in the article? If I had to guess I would say that you like this series.

Sourcing: You have a good amount of references and have documented well all the awards and collected editions. There are six independent sources aside from those. All seem reliable and recent.

The most important thing you could do is expand on your summary and switch the order of the sections as mentioned above.

Good job! Eyebasooda (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)William

Peer Review - Rosa
Overall everything looked good, there was enough background knowledge to understand the basis of plot and character. However I do wish you went more into themes and information of the actual story rather than focusing on the cultural impact which is great but you could have both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosh1627 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost
Think about your feedback. I think K's comment on your lead deserves some consideration. And what's going on with the table? Profhanley (talk)