Wikipedia:Peer review/Masters of Doom/archive1

Masters of Doom
I have never written an article for a book before so I want to get some advice and feedback as to what to do with the article.

Thanks, GamerPro64  02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some content in the, er, Content section that probably needs to be cited as it goes beyond the usual "the citation for the plot is the work" kind of stuff.
 * In terms of general readability, if there's not additional information to fill out some of the subsections, I think you're best of axing them and allowing the text to flow uninterrupted (for example, in the "legacy" or "publication" sections.
 * The main gap in coverage at this point seems to be any further information on developing/writing the book. Not sure how much is out there to incorporate.
 * Given the amount of reviews the book has gotten, I think it would be best to break up the critical reception into aspects rather than just listing off one review after another.
 * Is there anything else you can draw from the Gamespy coverage? I see that they gave away copies of the book and Kusner did a Q&A which might be worth briefly mentioning in terms of promotion.
 * Reprints or anything to add to publication history?
 * I feel like there should be a source out there on the lawsuit's resolution, even if it's just the filings from the court.
 * Doing a quick search, I found reviews of the book from the Library Journal, Washington Monthly, Publishers Weekly and others. Send me an email and I can shoot you some PDFs to incorporate.

Misc.

 * I have a bunch of sources at User:Czar/drafts/Masters of Doom saved from 2016. I'll add them. (not watching, please )  czar  23:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)