 | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Frankiefoyjames
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- /info/en/?search=User:Frankiefoyjames/Grass_%28novel%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Grass (novel)
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
*Note, the content of each section is discussed under the appropriate header, as well as two additional sections for tone and balance, and organization
Adding in the quote from New York Times helped to strength the claim that Grass was one of Tepper's best work and makes the article more engaging to the reader. While the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, no one will read on and learn anything if the article does not seem interesting. Having such a strong quote paired alongside the claim that Grass is regarding as one of Tepper's best novels spurs the viewer to read further. The lead is concise, however it does contain information that is not further elaborated on in the article. Most notably, I could not find where in the article it discusses how gender and social inequalities lead to the destruction of Earth.
The newly added section is very brief, and likely could stay in the background section, especially since the plot summary already mentions that the novel takes place on a planet called Grass. A productive way to add to this section would add more detail about how Grass is described in the novel, including life of the native species and the daily lives of the humans who settled there.
Integrating the background information with the plot section was a good move. It makes the article feel more concise, less cluttered, and easier to understand and follow. However, the information about the plot is rather bare bones. Very little is said about what actually happens in the novel. It reads more like the summary on the back of a book rather than a piece written to inform the reader of what happens.
Given how the article opens with a statement about how Grass is "... considered to be to be among her best works, as well as being a definitive work of science fiction literature", adding in a reception section was a very wise decision. Though, the section itself feels a little misguided. Rather than discussing the reception of the novel both at the time and in contemporary times, the reception section primarily focuses on how Tepper herself is received as an author and seems to place more importance on a different novel by Tepper, The Gate to Women's Country. However, the end of the section which mentions how "... one of Grass' contributions that most interested critics was its idea that, far from being a boon to the cosmos, humanity might be better perceived as a virus". The phrasing is a little clunky, however this sentence highlights the impact Grass had on science fiction. If possible more information should be added as to how individual critics and notable figures in the literary community reacted to Grass at the time that it came out, and perhaps a brief mention of what the public perception of Grass was. Sales figures can also be used to bolster this section, giving a rough numerical estimate of success.
The newly added information feels neutral and informative in tone for the most part. However, the reception section primarily discusses' Tepper's achievements and her supports while not mentioning any potential dissenters or critics (as in those critical to, rather than in support of) of her work.
Few new sources are added, however those that are come from reputable sources. However, most of the sources pertain to Tepper's other works rather than Grass itself. If possible, there should be more sources added that connect directly Grass rather than Tepper herself. It seems that only two of the four sources added are directly related to Grass rather than Tepper's other works. Overall, the sources are about as contemporary as they can be for a book published in the late 1980s. However, if possible, it could be helpful to find a few sources written about Grass from a more modern viewpoint. The links to the sources do indeed work.
The organization of the draft is better than the organization of the original article. Condensing the plot summary and the background into one section makes much more logical sense and makes the article easier to follow. However, the Setting section needs more content in it to justify its existence. I didn't notice any major spelling or grammatical errors. There are just a few stylistic changes that I would personally change. Namely, the sentence "In terms of the novel itself, one of Grass' contributions that most interested critics was its idea that, far from being a boon to the cosmos, humanity might be better perceived as a virus." feels like it could be better phrased as something along the lines of "One of the ideas presented in Grass that interested critics the most was the idea that rather than being a gift to the cosmos, humanity might be better perceived as a virus", omitting the "In terms of the novel itself" entirely. However, much of that comes down to personal preference in individual writing quirks and preference of word choice. No new images or media were added, however that's not really necessary for an article about a novel.
The aspect of the article that has been improved is the organization and the lead. Both have been improved immensely. And, in the proposed edits, there are some good ideas like a reception section. However, the information should be refined more to be specifically about Grass rather than Tepper. Additionally, as mentioned before, the Setting section should either be bolstered with additional information or merged into the newly formed Plot section. Additional sources would also add the quality of the article, however it is a good step in the right direction : )
Hey Lunderwoods--this is a remarkable peer review, far beyond my expectations. Thank you so much for your attentive, helpful, and insightful review. I only wish I could do your comments justice, for I agree with them completely.
Thanks so much,
Frankiefoyjames
| Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Frankiefoyjames
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- /info/en/?search=User:Frankiefoyjames/Grass_%28novel%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Grass (novel)
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
*Note, the content of each section is discussed under the appropriate header, as well as two additional sections for tone and balance, and organization
Adding in the quote from New York Times helped to strength the claim that Grass was one of Tepper's best work and makes the article more engaging to the reader. While the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, no one will read on and learn anything if the article does not seem interesting. Having such a strong quote paired alongside the claim that Grass is regarding as one of Tepper's best novels spurs the viewer to read further. The lead is concise, however it does contain information that is not further elaborated on in the article. Most notably, I could not find where in the article it discusses how gender and social inequalities lead to the destruction of Earth.
The newly added section is very brief, and likely could stay in the background section, especially since the plot summary already mentions that the novel takes place on a planet called Grass. A productive way to add to this section would add more detail about how Grass is described in the novel, including life of the native species and the daily lives of the humans who settled there.
Integrating the background information with the plot section was a good move. It makes the article feel more concise, less cluttered, and easier to understand and follow. However, the information about the plot is rather bare bones. Very little is said about what actually happens in the novel. It reads more like the summary on the back of a book rather than a piece written to inform the reader of what happens.
Given how the article opens with a statement about how Grass is "... considered to be to be among her best works, as well as being a definitive work of science fiction literature", adding in a reception section was a very wise decision. Though, the section itself feels a little misguided. Rather than discussing the reception of the novel both at the time and in contemporary times, the reception section primarily focuses on how Tepper herself is received as an author and seems to place more importance on a different novel by Tepper, The Gate to Women's Country. However, the end of the section which mentions how "... one of Grass' contributions that most interested critics was its idea that, far from being a boon to the cosmos, humanity might be better perceived as a virus". The phrasing is a little clunky, however this sentence highlights the impact Grass had on science fiction. If possible more information should be added as to how individual critics and notable figures in the literary community reacted to Grass at the time that it came out, and perhaps a brief mention of what the public perception of Grass was. Sales figures can also be used to bolster this section, giving a rough numerical estimate of success.
The newly added information feels neutral and informative in tone for the most part. However, the reception section primarily discusses' Tepper's achievements and her supports while not mentioning any potential dissenters or critics (as in those critical to, rather than in support of) of her work.
Few new sources are added, however those that are come from reputable sources. However, most of the sources pertain to Tepper's other works rather than Grass itself. If possible, there should be more sources added that connect directly Grass rather than Tepper herself. It seems that only two of the four sources added are directly related to Grass rather than Tepper's other works. Overall, the sources are about as contemporary as they can be for a book published in the late 1980s. However, if possible, it could be helpful to find a few sources written about Grass from a more modern viewpoint. The links to the sources do indeed work.
The organization of the draft is better than the organization of the original article. Condensing the plot summary and the background into one section makes much more logical sense and makes the article easier to follow. However, the Setting section needs more content in it to justify its existence. I didn't notice any major spelling or grammatical errors. There are just a few stylistic changes that I would personally change. Namely, the sentence "In terms of the novel itself, one of Grass' contributions that most interested critics was its idea that, far from being a boon to the cosmos, humanity might be better perceived as a virus." feels like it could be better phrased as something along the lines of "One of the ideas presented in Grass that interested critics the most was the idea that rather than being a gift to the cosmos, humanity might be better perceived as a virus", omitting the "In terms of the novel itself" entirely. However, much of that comes down to personal preference in individual writing quirks and preference of word choice. No new images or media were added, however that's not really necessary for an article about a novel.
The aspect of the article that has been improved is the organization and the lead. Both have been improved immensely. And, in the proposed edits, there are some good ideas like a reception section. However, the information should be refined more to be specifically about Grass rather than Tepper. Additionally, as mentioned before, the Setting section should either be bolstered with additional information or merged into the newly formed Plot section. Additional sources would also add the quality of the article, however it is a good step in the right direction : )
Hey Lunderwoods--this is a remarkable peer review, far beyond my expectations. Thank you so much for your attentive, helpful, and insightful review. I only wish I could do your comments justice, for I agree with them completely.
Thanks so much,
Frankiefoyjames