Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 1

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

To Kill a Mockingbird[edit]

Prior peer review can be found here:[1]

I'd like to get some feedback on the article as I've been trying to work on it. I've looked at the old peer review, but I'm still pretty unsure about what really needs doing as I'm new to this sort of thing. Any feedback at all would be extremely helpful. Shrub of power 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit[edit]

  • Right off, I can tell that you need to do some research. The "Themes" section should be written in prose (no lists) and based on the work of literary scholars. A lot has been written on this book, so obtaining reliable, scholarly sources will not be a problem (WP:RS). Right now, it is hard to tell whether the "Themes" section represents your intepretation of the book or what; that is why you need inline citations (WP:CITE. Wikipedia should represent the scholarly consensus in each of its articles.
  • Watch out for POV in statements like this: Lee weaves together a story that has remained relevant and interesting over the years.
  • You should condense the "Plot summary" - not every detail has to make it into the summary (that's why it is a summary, right?). I would also cut down on the list of characters, if possible. We are not sparknotes. The page should be dominated by an explanation of the various interpretations of the text (taken from scholarly sources), not a rehashing of the plot.
  • The "Literary significance" goes beyond the banning of books. Again, research will help you out here. I would replace this heading with something like "Reception and legacy" considering what information you already have and work on finding out more about how the book was initially received by critics and the public and trace its reception history.
  • The "Allusions/References from other works" needs to be radically revised so that is not a list or it needs to be deleted. There does not seem to be a reason for its inclusion right now other than trivia.
  • The "Allusions/references to reality" section should be renamed and placed earlier in the article; perhaps something like "Historical context"? Also, it needs to be expanded, researched and cited as well.
  • It is not a good idea to list the different editions of a book unless you are citing the list from a scholarly bibliography. Scholars spend a great deal of time searching out every edition and noting their differences. Your page makes it seem like the book was released twice.
  • Cut down on the external links. For example, why are you linking to sparknotes? Why are we advertising for them or promoting their way of reading? In no way does a link to sparknotes help a reader understand this book. Link only to pages that will offer the reader significantly more information than the article has.