Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The peer review department of the Novels WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Novels WikiProject.


Requesting a review[edit]

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{NovelsWikiProject}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "currently" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

Responding to a request[edit]

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== Your user name ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.


Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{NovelsWikiProject}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.


Growth of the Soil[edit]

Rewrote the article but I know it needs further improvements. NikolaiHo☎️ 18:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Warriors (novel series)[edit]

I try to make little fixes whenever I can, but I really want to know what can be changed now. Thank you in advance! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I do know that this is pretty much inactive, but someone might come over. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello - I would like your thoughts on this please. I know there is still work to be done, and I am currently reading a book which I hope to contribute to this at some point, but I'd like an impartial opinion on my writing, the sections - whether they are too long and detailed? Whether as a reader you feel it lacks something essential? Whether it flows well. etc General thought really. Would be very much appreciated.

Thanks Cutiekatie (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about writing the comments previously. I had started something and lost it when I closed my browser a little too quickly! 3 things strike me as really needing improvement:
  1. The sections Characters and Themes hinge mostly on Quotations directly from the book and analysis of those quotations, which is Original Research. We have a policy on Wikipedia called WP:No Original Research which is paired with the policy WP:Verifiability. On Wikipedia we want to use opinions about a subject already published by experts in the field. For better examples on how this is done, see The Great Lover (novel), Quicksilver (novel), The Red Badge of Courage, Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell and The Sun Also Rises, all of which are peer reviewed high quality content on Wikipedia. Remember on Wikipedia we are looking for Verifiability not truth.
  2. The section World Reaction needs to have more then just quotes and be more prose oriented. A series of quotes is used to sell a novel, a summary of opinions is a Wikipedia style analysis of the literary criticism available.
  3. The lead should not have very many direct references, but rather should be summarizing the rest of the article per WP:LEAD.
I will give a more nitpicky analysis of the article, with more subsection by subsection comments once you handle these which are really critical for good Wikipedia article writing, perhaps during a GA review at WP:GAN. The samples I gave you are 2 Good Articles (WP:GA) and 3 Featured Articles (WP:FA), so should be a good model for all three problems. Sadads (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bad Seed[edit]

I have been diligently working on this article; primarily for my Shaping of the Modern World class at the university I attend. I am asking for reviews on the article to allow me to know what improvements are necessary. My ultimate goal is for the article to obtain Good Article status, and continue on to become a featured article. Reviews with constructive criticism and mentions to the positives of the article are greatly wanted. Thank you!! DaisyPearlTT (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Freaky Green Eyes[edit]

I wrote this for my History class and I was hoping to get a peer review so I can improve it before it is due (April 20th). If you can help that would be great thank you so much! Noeljack (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Saturday (novel)[edit]

I've done significant work on the article, bringing it well beyond start class. I'd like to nominate if for GA then FA soon after.

1.) I'm not quite sure what needs to be done

2.) Not quite sure the article has a good voice, though there are excellent sources and consistent citing, I think there is a little too much "X said.."...."..., Y critic said "...".

Thanks, Ktlynch (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The God Beneath the Sea[edit]

I've been working on this article for the last couple of months and I'd like some feedback on how to polish it up to B-Class standard and identify areas for further improvement. --Muchness (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I don't know how, but I like the name of your article, so I support you.Chengcheng 16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)chengcheng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelva28 (talkcontribs)

Time After Time (Alexander novel)[edit]

I have made several major changes to the article, adding a plot summary section, a differences between novel and film section, and an external links section. All comments on the changes I have made are invited. Durwoodie (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from PrincessofLlyr[edit]

Over all, I think you have done a great job improving the article. As the rather old, but still applicable, tag says, it does need references. I realize that sometimes those can be hard to find, especially for a lesser-known book, but I would guess that there are some available. Also, if possible, a section listing the general response and reviews of the book is good. Another editor may be able to tell you more minor, specific things to fix, but references are definitely very important. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/The Tell-Tale Heart

Snow Crash[edit]

I just moved it from Start to B and would like some input on how to get it to GAN.--Oneiros (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lightning Thief[edit]

Recently failed GAN. I've updated the article and would like to know what can be done to improve it. Regards, Pmlineditor 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

  • Update: Passed GAN but I'd like to know what's needed to take it to FA status. PmlineditorTalk 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Kindly Ones[edit]

I did a general overhaul of the article in the last two weeks, specially regarding the sources. What else should I do to improve it? Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks fairly good to me someone who knows the material more should be able to suggest better things to improve. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

World War Z[edit]

This novel was recently approved for GA and now I'm working on it to get ready for a FA nomination. Someone from the Guild of Copy Editors has already taken a look at it, but I would like more people to review the article and help improve the prose. Also I would like some feedback about whether a character section would imporve this article, I've been working on a rough draft here. Thank you for your assistance. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

First off: Kudos for your fine work on this article! It's well-researched and contains lots of good info. You've clearly devoted lots of love and time to this piece. I think it's close to FAC territory, but needs some tweaking first.

The comments, suggestions, and questions below are for your consideration; feel free to adopt them or reject them as you will.


  • It's important to avoid overlinking. It's best to link only those terms which are exceptional or a typical reader is likely to immediately need more information about. I removed the link for novel in the lead, and I recommend doing the same for 2006 in literature. (Colliding links aren't good, but sometimes they're unavoidable, as in post-apocalyptic horror. However, we should try to avoid them as much as possible.)
  • Is there a date or tiemframe for the story? I'd really like to end the revised sentence in the lead: "...a decade after the Zombie War of XXXX."
There is never a clear date given. It is set in the future (from 2006's POV) with mentions of a Chinese space station and other details, but Brooks never comes out and says when the war happened. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


  • Blockquotes should generally be used only for quotes more than four lines long. I recommend removing the blockquote formatting and putting the quote about all the homework into the paragraph itself.
  • This section feels thin. If there's no other information available, then there simply isn't. But I expect there may be other interviews and/or articles to be found? I would also recommend putting the info from the "References to other works" section in this part of the article.

Plot summary

  • Images need alternate text in addition to captions. This will come up at FAC, so it's better to add it beforehand.
  • The plot summary feels a little long, but there's no set limit or standard. Be sure to read this section, though. I trimmed some of the sentences a bit, but you may want to consider combining some of the paragraphs.
  • I'd like to see a sentence about the structure of the book (interviews, as I understand it).
  • We could use a brief explanation of what a "brushfire war" is.
  • We could also use some details in the first or second summary paragraph explaining what exactly the infection does to people — how do the zombies behave?
  • In an attempt to halt the flow of infected refugees from India, Iran destroys several key bridges within Pakistan, leading to a nuclear war between the two countries. This is confusing in several ways. Which two countries have a nuclear war? And it's not clear how Iran is able to blow up bridges in Pakistan; are their governments working together? Are the Indian refugees trying to get to Iran or Pakistan?


  • It's generally best to use the present tense when describing critical reaction. ("Alder Utter ... notes...")
  • It would be good to include some examples of how the US isolates itself. We have some good examples of the themes discussed in the first section, but sometimes it's vague. ("One character in the novel tries to justify lying about the zombie outbreak to avoid widespread panic while at the same time failing to develop a solution for fear of arousing public ire." What specifically does he say/do?)
  • We should get some examples for the Survivalism section, too. (I'm not keen on one-paragraph sections in general; adding more details will allow you to flesh this out. Maybe one paragraph for survivalism and one for disaster preparedness?
  • I really like the last quote in the "Uncertainty" section.

Literary significance and reception

  • I would start with the more prestigious publications first. The Daily Cardinal is a fine newspaper, but it's better to lead off with the perspectives of EW and The Onion's AV Club.
  • We should get a brief phrase of description for who Steven H. Silver is.
  • We should also get origin identification (city or state or education institution) for papers like The Daily Cardinal and The Eagle.
  • "A reviewer on RPGnet" is pretty vague. It sounds like some random person put up some thoughts on a forum post (which is not a reliable source, obviously).


  • I would recommend against giving the big list of cast members; instead, I advise including a sentence or two like "The cast includes well-known actors like..." and then give some of the most prominent names.
  • I also think we could combine the "Critical reception and recognition" paragraph into the main "Audiobook" section, removing the need for a separate one-paragraph section.

Film adaptation

  • There's a danger that a section like this (constantly in flux) will become proseline. I'd remove dates that aren't necessary (for example, I took out the date Forster signed on).


  • This link is to a registration-required site. I'm not sure what the protocol is, but I expect at the least you should indicate that there's a restriction on the content. (I recommend removing it, personally.)
  • I recommend putting all the external links together; the separations are small and not necessary. (Each link description should be enough to indicate what the link is about.)

Again: Nice work so far! I look forward to seeing that bronze star atop the page before too long. Please let me know if you have any questions. Scartol • Tok 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. I will attempt to correct some of these issues you brought up as soon as I get the chance. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sector General[edit]

All parts of the article, please - except the lead, which I'll edit after the main text is OK. --Philcha (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Petals of Blood[edit]

I've created this page, and have done a lot of work to it over the past week. I'm wondering where to go with it now, and how to expand it better. I feel that I've given the article a good basis, but would like suggestions on which direction to take it so that I may expand it in a useful way, give welcome and helpful information, and avoid any waffle.

Any advice would be very much appreciated.--Adasta Flag of England.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 10:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scenes of Clerical Life[edit]

I've expanded this article substantially over the past few weeks and would like to take it to GA-standard if possible. I have two main concerns:

  1. General Wikipedia conventions that I have failed to pick up on due to my inexperience as an editor.
  2. With regard to this article specifically: have I succeeded in placing the work in context? I have a feeling that more may be needed to establish the religious climate in England in the first half of the nineteenth century, but am wary of letting it take over the article.

But really I'm open to all comments and suggestions for improvement. Thanks! El Staplador (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Review from the_ed17[edit]

Overall, this is a very nice article! Good work so far. My comments are literally in a random order as I go from top to bottom and back up and back down...etc., so sorry for that. :) (My comments are for this version)

  • WP:LEAD says that the intro should be a summary of the entire article. Though I only skim-read the article, I didn't see any mention of poverty, alcoholism or domestic violence anywhere!
  • Your references can be combined...a pain, I know, but someone at GAN, or at the least FAC, will ask you to do this.
    • Take a look at The Sword of Shannara, one of 'my' articles. See how the books are formatted so that the {{cite book}} templates go in a separate 'Bibliography' section and then the in-line cites have Author, Page(period)? Try that to clean up your reference section.
    • Heck, if you want, look at USS Nevada (BB-36). I put all of my books outside of the 'References' section to be consistent. That isn't required by any means, but it can help you keep track of all of your books. :)
  • Please try using {{cite web}} for your web references...only a link and access date aren't enough!
    • Also, use ref naming for different reference #'s for the same thing (Refs 27-28).
  • When you use <ref name="blah blah> just have a short little word or two that describes your ref. No need to get so detwiled and take up unnessessary space in the edit window.
  • You are allowed to have successive sentences covered by one you only need one [1] in the lead.
  • Refs come after punctuation (i.e. lorem ipsum.[1]
  • No spacing between double cites (i.e. [3][4]) and no spacing between punctuation and refs (i.e. blah blah,[5] blah blah.)
  • I didn't see this in the article, but in case you add a page range in there (I.e. Author, pp. 307–309.), you have to use an endash. Same for year ranges!
  • GAN might not require it, but FAC will ask for the character list to have out-of-universe info on the characters, not just "rehashes" of the plot. I.e. symbolism, why the author made that character how she did, etc.
  • Well, you could expand the background part, but if you are really afraid of it taking over, try using {{main}} with the article (whatever the name is) Religion in England in the 19th Century or Religion in England#Whatever section you need to link too.....I really have no idea what article you would use, but it was an idea. =)
  • Hope this helps. I'll have this page watchlisted, so if you want to reply, go ahead and do so on here. Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. These references really are my nemesis! Thinking about it, I could probably cover the relevant parts of the religious question if I did a brief overview in the Background section and made a new section for Themes. Then I could emphasise the social issues that are also covered... why didn't I think of that before? I did have a look for an article that I could link to, but there didn't seem to be anything specifically saying "here is what was going on in England in the 1820s", just vaguely relevant articles about various religious movements. Looks like I'll have to write it myself if I want it ;-) El Staplador (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem! I can help with the references if you'd like - just ask. :)
PR's, GAN's and FAC's bring out obvious stuff that you've me. Don't get too mad at yourself.
I didn't know if there was an was just a guess on my part. If you do write up something fo rit, remeber to nominate it at T:TDYK! Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So I lied...I helped with the refs anyway. :D So sue me. All comments below this line do not refer to the "version" linked above.
Ref #19 needs the year in which it was published.
"In English" is not needed in ref #28.
If anyone in later reviews asks "why are refs #1 and 15 reliable?", tell them that they were written by university professors.
Does ref #1 require a subscription? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the refs - I appreciate it! What I've used from ref #1 is all from the first page, for which a subscription isn't technically needed since it seems to be a free preview. I was slightly confused by #19; it's an encyclopaedia from [1], and I couldn't pin the date down to anything more precise than 1907-21.El Staplador (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem!
Never mind then. :)
Humph. Well, I'm not exactly sure on what to do then... Leave it to your GA reviewer or, if you take it that far, to the FAC people. The guys and gals at FAC will call you on it, and then you can just ask them! Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) In the "Religious Context" section...this para needs a ref.

During the period that George Eliot depicts in Scenes of Clerical Life religion in England was undergoing significant changes. While Dissenting (Nonconformist) Churches had been established as early as the Church of England itself, the emergence of Methodism in 1739 presented particular challenges to the Established Church. Evangelicalism, at first confined to the Dissenting Churches, soon found adherents within the Church of England itself. Meanwhile, at the other end of the religious spectrum, the Oxford Movement was seeking to emphasise the Church of England's identity as a catholic and apostolic Church, reassessing its relationship to Roman Catholicism. Thus in the early 19th century Midlands that George Eliot would later depict various religious ideas can be identified: the tension between the Established and the Dissenting Churches, and the differing strands within Anglicanism itself, between the Low church, the High church and the Broad church.

Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, assuming that the History Channel website counts as a reliable source. El Staplador (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything in the way of numbers? Publication statistics, # of copies sold, anything of the like? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably; I'll see what I can find... El Staplador (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the History Channel is definitely an RS.
Alright...good luck. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
'Themes' section added. El Staplador (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Flowers for Algernon[edit]

Hi. I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the past couple of months. Found some good online as well as paper sources. I think it might be ready for a GA-nom, although the Themes and Reception sections need significant work before looking at FA. Before I go for GA and finish the expansion, I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts. Anyone want to pitch in and help on the work that needs doing? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)