User talk:Gemaavila/sandbox

Yuri peer review #2

1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? -> The summary of the book is really clear. Each character is introduced with necessary background information, which made it easy for me to follow the plot line. I would say that you are done with your summary and should move onto the character section :) Don't forget to mention the title of the novel in your main page!

2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -> In terms of formatting, create titles ("Summary", "Characters" etc), highlight them, and choose "Heading" that is located on the top left hand corner of the tool section. This will help you create sections and organize your article. In terms of citation, the second one (PPL Princeton Public Library) simply directed me to the library page and not to the page where I can read about either the author or the book. The third citation also directs me to the LitCharts general page and not to the book's content page. The first and the fourth ones work well.

3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -> I would like to know if you are going to add other sections besides characters and plot summary? Your model page has themes and structure in addition to what you already have.

---

Ask yourself:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? -> No. Did this book receive an award?

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? -> I think there is no lead in your article so far...?

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? -> N/A

Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? -> The summary part is clear.

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? -> The summary is great.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? -> N/A

Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? -> No

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." -> No

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." -> No

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. -> No

Sourcing

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? -> I think it relies on the book itself, correct?

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. -> No

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! -> No — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnocco (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Wow! I really want to read this book! I like that your lead section is easy to understand and the information that you share there was so good, I already made up my mind to read the book then. Your article has a very clear structure and is concise and neutral, which I know can be challenging! But I think you did a great job. If I would make any suggestions it would be that maybe you could add information about the author Cristina Henriquez, I would be interested to know how she was inspired to write the story. I was also wondering if maybe you would want to add the Best Books of 2014 and 2014 novella of the year to the top, unless Development and Publication History moves down and you could put it there? I like that your sources are able to give some fun opinions and exciting language, that was a good idea! I look forward to seeing the page when you are all finished! And to have a conversation about the book too. Great job! Graiperins (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graiperins (talk • contribs)

Oops, I need to make correction, I couldn't find sandbox, I was looking at the article and posted there, it got sent back to me. I really like that you have added some more detail about plot and characters!, the only thing I am concerned about is that it may have too many opinion, or statements that show what you think personally? I'm not sure though, we should probably ask a professional. I do think it would be good to add some information about the author if there is anything she has said about her experience writing the book. I want to read it, it sounds very interesting and tumultuous, and important. Great job! Graiperins (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)