Wikipedia:Peer review/Masters of Doom/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have never written an article for a book before so I want to get some advice and feedback as to what to do with the article.

There's some content in the, er, Content section that probably needs to be cited as it goes beyond the usual "the citation for the plot is the work" kind of stuff.
In terms of general readability, if there's not additional information to fill out some of the subsections, I think you're best of axing them and allowing the text to flow uninterrupted (for example, in the "legacy" or "publication" sections.
The main gap in coverage at this point seems to be any further information on developing/writing the book. Not sure how much is out there to incorporate.
Given the amount of reviews the book has gotten, I think it would be best to break up the critical reception into aspects rather than just listing off one review after another.
Is there anything else you can draw from the Gamespy coverage? I see that they gave away copies of the book and Kusner did a Q&A which might be worth briefly mentioning in terms of promotion.
Reprints or anything to add to publication history?
I feel like there should be a source out there on the lawsuit's resolution, even if it's just the filings from the court.
Doing a quick search, I found reviews of the book from the Library Journal, Washington Monthly, Publishers Weekly and others. Send me an email and I can shoot you some PDFs to incorporate.

I have a bunch of sources at User:Czar/drafts/Masters of Doom saved from 2016. I'll add them. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]