| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve my article writing and editing skills with feedback from others. Thanks, Jjhake (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
editComments after a quick skim:
- I would write the "Structure and form" section like a plot summary.
- Avoid POV statements like "Roland in Moonlight is an expansive book, but Roland as the lead character easily holds together its many narratives and sweeping discourses." This is an opinionated statement and should be attributed to the person who holds this opinion, and moved to a reception section of the article.
- "Hart and several readers have said in multiple interviews that Hart put everything he had into this book." Another POV sentence that can probably be removed.
- The second paragraph of the theme section needs inline citations.
- Instead of listing who has reviewed the work, I suggest that you expand upon what they wrote. WP:RECEPTION might help with this.
- The Background section should be earlier in the article, not at the end.
- The references need to be expanded upon with more information about the source, including author and access date.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Very helpful, thank you! (Btw, I'm close to finished with working my way through your great recommendations for the David Bentley Hart article. I'm just filling in a few more gaps with citations and cleaning up a few of the old citations there. Once I finish everything I can think from your initial comments there, I hope to try out the Template:FAC peer review sidebar there and then move back and clean up some this Roland in Moonlight article following your list above.) Jjhake (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)