Talk:CoDex 1962: A Trilogy

Here is my peer review of your article.

General info User:Clarkwilson1, User:Aumaru User:Clarkwilson1/sandbox

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes (Sort of -- see evaluation below)

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

This was a very well-written lead. It covers all of the information I would expect in a book article. I noticed that there is a mention of the themes ("...themes of nationalism, social injustice, and the Jewish resettlement"). It's mentioned again in the "background", which is perfect, but I also think these themes should be discussed in the context of the plot. I assume elaboration on this would go in the "Analysis" section, which is not yet written. My only other recommendation is that you add an image of the book cover, if possible.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation

Overall, the content is good. However, there are a few issues. The first thing I noticed was how much bigger the Part II section was than the Part I. I understand that section was probably longer, but I think it could be a bit more concise. Not every detail has to be included. Another concern is the quote in the "Background" section. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that quotations should be kept to a very minimum. You do not need the block of text in the middle of that section; it can easily be summarized in one or two sentences. I would also love to see a bit more on the translator, if possible, since this article is about the English version of the text. Can you find any sources about the translating process of this book?

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

There is not really a "side" to take here. Tone is professional and neutral. Great job!

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes -- sort of. See evaluation.

Are the sources current? Yes

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Good number of sources, all reliable. However, you could use some variety. Almost every source is a review. Try to see if you can fit in some more objective sources (maybe something about the historical context???) or better yet, more interviews/direct quotes from the author or translator.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

Not much to say here. Well-written and well-organized.

Info Box

Is there an infobox? Yes

Does it contain relevant information? Yes

Info Box Evaluation

Great job! Includes title, author, translator, language, publisher, and date.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes

What are the strengths of the content added? Well-organized; includes all of the minimum sections; lots of sources/references

How can the content added be improved? FINISH IT! Add to the plot, characters, and analysis section. Try to cut down the second part of the plot summary. It is very long in comparison to the first part.

Overall evaluation

Awesome first article! Finish it, trim some of the content, and add an image, and it will be perfect.

Emaaelrayah (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Emaaelrayah

Great advice from the peer review. My advice is to be more concise (shorten the first part to even it up with the next). Also, do heavier sourcing. You go for a long paragraph with no source. Remember that you are reporting, not doing the analysis. Wikipedia reviewers will really ding you for this, so you must be attentive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Yseut229* (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)