 | 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
( Sofiaep23)
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Sofiaep23/The Quantum Rose
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- The Quantum Rose
Evaluate the drafted changes
I think Sofia did a great job cleaning up the parts of the article that already exist. Going off 'bolded = her edits' it seems that she cleaned up a lot of diction, confusing phrasing, typos, and some misinformation in the already existing article.
Second, I like that Sofia is removing some lines. (Sometimes less is more, and that seems to be the case for the plot summary.) It cleans it up and makes the article clearer for readers.
I think Sofia handled the neutral tone fairly well.
I personally feel the 'Reception' section should still go before the new section 'Comparison to Beauty and the Beast' just because it feels like it makes sense to come after 'plot summary'. But I could see how it may be more valuable to have the new section first.
A strong change I may recommend is restructuring/organizing the information in the new section. Right now it just seems like the information is too broken up. Like this looks a bit strange to me as one stand alone sentence: "While author Catherine Asaro refers to The Quantum Rose as a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, her tale mirrors the original in terms of overarching themes more-so than specific plot structure."
It might just be my opinion on structure, but if you look at a good number of high class articles they seem to prefer a tighter structure as well. One thing I've even noticed as a recommended fix is: "This article may have too many section headers dividing up its content." Not that you are dividing up your content with section headers, but it splits off often.
I did take pause at the fact that the main section of your draft did not have any citations. The citations in your draft fix what already exists and for the section after, but there is nothing for the entire 'Comparison to Beauty and the Beast' section. For example, where is the information for "While author Catherine Asaro refers to The Quantum Rose as a retelling of Beauty and the Beast" where is this coming from? Is it from the book directly? An interview? I have to ask because I also had to list 'Howl's Moving Castle' as a source for when I was saying stuff from the book that other people might not know. It is tricky to think about other people using what we write...
Lastly, the section on "Other Science Fiction Adaptations of Beauty and the Beast" is interesting. This is one of those good sections you would hope other Wikipedians down the line would want to add to. That being said, I'm not sure how far you would want to go in adding plot summaries for them because of that. That would be entirely up to you.
Overall, the editions you have made to your article have definitely made major improvements to it.
| 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
( Sofiaep23)
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Sofiaep23/The Quantum Rose
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- The Quantum Rose
Evaluate the drafted changes
I think Sofia did a great job cleaning up the parts of the article that already exist. Going off 'bolded = her edits' it seems that she cleaned up a lot of diction, confusing phrasing, typos, and some misinformation in the already existing article.
Second, I like that Sofia is removing some lines. (Sometimes less is more, and that seems to be the case for the plot summary.) It cleans it up and makes the article clearer for readers.
I think Sofia handled the neutral tone fairly well.
I personally feel the 'Reception' section should still go before the new section 'Comparison to Beauty and the Beast' just because it feels like it makes sense to come after 'plot summary'. But I could see how it may be more valuable to have the new section first.
A strong change I may recommend is restructuring/organizing the information in the new section. Right now it just seems like the information is too broken up. Like this looks a bit strange to me as one stand alone sentence: "While author Catherine Asaro refers to The Quantum Rose as a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, her tale mirrors the original in terms of overarching themes more-so than specific plot structure."
It might just be my opinion on structure, but if you look at a good number of high class articles they seem to prefer a tighter structure as well. One thing I've even noticed as a recommended fix is: "This article may have too many section headers dividing up its content." Not that you are dividing up your content with section headers, but it splits off often.
I did take pause at the fact that the main section of your draft did not have any citations. The citations in your draft fix what already exists and for the section after, but there is nothing for the entire 'Comparison to Beauty and the Beast' section. For example, where is the information for "While author Catherine Asaro refers to The Quantum Rose as a retelling of Beauty and the Beast" where is this coming from? Is it from the book directly? An interview? I have to ask because I also had to list 'Howl's Moving Castle' as a source for when I was saying stuff from the book that other people might not know. It is tricky to think about other people using what we write...
Lastly, the section on "Other Science Fiction Adaptations of Beauty and the Beast" is interesting. This is one of those good sections you would hope other Wikipedians down the line would want to add to. That being said, I'm not sure how far you would want to go in adding plot summaries for them because of that. That would be entirely up to you.
Overall, the editions you have made to your article have definitely made major improvements to it.