User talk:Tnrud23/Wiki Project Draft

Hello, Overall, I really appreciate the plot section that you added to this page. It is clear and concise and overall works very well. I do believe that the grammar can be improved as well as some of the tenses and structure of the sentences. For example, remembering to capitalize after a period, capitalizing the princes title, as well as commas to prevent run on sentences. The content is really good though and the sources and their links seem to work as well. EWLung (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

EWLung thanks for your review. I think it might help if you gave some additional examples (cite the actual sentences) where the author can improve her writing. Tnrud23 I'll wait until you get your second peer review to comment more extensively, but I like the plot section you added, and I think it would be a great idea to improve sections on the history and context of this myth, because there is a lot of assumed knowledge, and a casual reader of this page might get lost very easily. Try also to fix any places where it says 'citation needed'. Keep up the good work! Gardneca (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Tnrud23's Peer Review

Hi- SO sorry this is late (I did in fact review the actual page)

Lead Section: I think you did a really really great job with the lead section. You did a good job in the first section just describing shortly what the story was about and who the main characters were. I also like that in the lead section you included the setting and where this narrative was first mentioned. I also really like that the last sentence you added to the section explained the significance of the story. Your lead section foes reflect the most important information in the article and I don't think that anything was missing or redundant. The only thing that I was confused about was that in the lead section, you say that Prince Hodong was the son of King Muhyeol, but in the Plot section, you say that he was the son of King Daemusin. If he was recorded of being both in different narratives, I would clarify which is correct.

Structure: I think that the structure of your article is good. I think that your article progresses in a very natural and think that you should keep the order as it is!

Coverage: I also think that your article has balanced coverage. While the plot section is longer than the rest of the sections, I think that it is necessary to be put like this. All of the sections of your article are of good length for what they are about and nothing is off-topic. I like that you added in the "Samguk Sagi" section because it informs readers where the story originally came from and I like the "Other Narratives" section because it gives readers extra sources that they can check out if they want to learn more about the story. I also like the "Nakrang Kingdom versus Lelang Commandery" because it lets readers know where the story may have taken place. However, in the first bullet of that section, I would suggest explaining what Wanggeomseong is so that readers who may not know can gain an understanding. I don't think that the article drew conclusions or tried to take a certain stance, so you did a good job with that.

Content: I think you did a good job keeping this article neutral and didn't make claims on the behalf of unnamed groups. I think you did a really great job with this article! You should be really proud of yourself :)

Sources: You used a lot of specific sources that all looked really reliable. I think there was a good balance of the reference uses but think that you may need to cite more in your actual article. Anywhere that states information that you didn't know yourself should have a citation. The lead section, The Samguk Sagi, Other Narratives, and Nakrang Kingdom versus Lelang Commandery sections all aren't cited, which is something you will want to add.

OVERALL: Really good job! There were just a few things that I would suggest to change but overall nice job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lstofko (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof G Final edits

Lead section - is this going to replace the current lead section, or is it going to be below the contents?

Contents - shouldn't be numbered

Jamyunggo - is this one item or two? You mention a drum AND flute, but then say 'it' or 'itself' - make sure this is clear!

Grammar:

• "Prince of the foe country" (foe is a noun not an adjective; so he is a foe, but 'enemy country' is better)
• drum and trumpet that sounded by itself (=themselves)
• use the Princess of Nakrang ('deceive' maybe?)
• "This tale is about nations, war, love, betrayal, and death that has been the topic of many dramatizations and philosophical comments." = warring nations, love, betrayal, and death and has been the topic
• This was a huge opportunity to prove himself for Prince Hodong if could take over Nakrang. = if he could take over Nakrang
• mythical drum and flute, Jamyunggo, that played itself = themselves
• make sure to have a colon (:) before your quotes
• can not = cannot
• The Princess was torn when she heard from the Prince = heard the Prince's request
• how could she go against her own country? = She faced the dilemma of betraying her own country
• The purpose of the author Kim Busik was to face a situation where = "to face a situation where" isn't a purpose. Maybe "to address the situation". But what is the situation? That the people don't know their own history? Then make sure you say that.

Remember to find a source for the Samguk Sagi section! Other than that, this looks great! Gardneca (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)