User:GarrettTonos/Bride and Groom (Book)/Scucchiara01 Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• I am reviewing Garrett Tonos and Joseph Fernandez
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:GarrettTonos/Bride and Groom (Book)#cite ref-:2 14-0

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead provides information that is not restated in the remainder of the article and it briefly introduces the articles topic in a concise manner. I find that the lead does tie loosely to the major sections but I would consider making those descriptions more identifiable. Overall, I do not find the lead to be overly detailed and find it to be mostly successful except for the line listed in the evaluation below.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

Majority of the information provided in this article I found relevant to the book and the subject matter. However, I would cut the phrase "who had translated one of Ganieva's works before" from the introduction as it pertains more to the author and translator than the book itself. The content appears to be up to date and accurate from what I have read of the sources. I would consider adding additional information on any potential awards the novel has received because it was mentioned in this source that was already referenced : http://deepvellum.org/product/bride-and-groom/. I think that will add more variety to your article and flush it out more.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The article does not seem to have much of a bias or favor a position of any sort. When the "themes" and "cultural significance" sections and flushed out this may be an issue that you will have to tread carefully around. I would recommend that for each theme or critique you provide opposing perspectives or make sure that it is very clear that those interpretations are subject to the bias. Of what is written so far, I believe the article is neutral and balanced.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

I found that when clicking through the links embedded in the article, some of them were empty and lead nowhere. I was unsure if this was due to the fact that those references were only intended as place holders for future links to be put in or if there was an error. I would go through and check your embedded references ( particularly 1, 2, 6). The remaining links worked well and the sources provided appeared to be current and relevant. The embedded references that did have working links appeared to be appropriate. Some of the sources appeared to be very brief but those that were contained unique information so I found them to still be appropriate. I would consider adding more sources to the "synopsis" section of your article as it seemed to lack any references and this would remove questions regarding personal interpretation. Overall, I found the sources to be appropriate but I would check the references listed above and add more to the summary section.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The content is very easy to read and seems to be divided in a logical manner. I would recommend though that you consider revising phrases such as "for some reason" to make your article more concise and formal. I would also consider combining the sections titled "themes" and "cultural significance" as it appears that will have many overlapping talking points. This may help the overall structure of the article by making it appear that you have larger, flushed out sections rather than very brief, small sections. I am also unsure if the romanticized title needs to be capitalized and italicized. Overall, I find the organization to work well for the article and the writing to be appropriate and effective.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

This article contains no images. I do not find that the article necessarily needs images to enhance any understanding. However, they may make the article more visually appealing to the reader if you can find images that are appropriate and usable.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

The sources seem to show a variety. I found some to be argumentative essays on cultural issues that referenced the novel while others were more a direct analysis of the novel. I think this variety is appropriate and useful. The article appears to have an appropriate amount of sources to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The article does follow the generic layout and structure I have seen in most articles. The article does contain links to other wiki articles so that it may be more discover-able but I would consider attempting to find more places to include links. Overall I found this to be on its way to be a successful new article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I found that the article is still incomplete but the resources to finish it are available in the sources already included. I think the main strength of the article is that there seems to be a lot to discuss in terms of themes and cultural impact which could hopefully help in increasing external article links and the overall thoroughness of the article. Because the article seems to still be in the works, it is hard to say what content can be improved but I would strongly urge to expand on the influences or general themes of the novel.