Talk:Death Is Hard Work

Untitled

Peer review of Death is Hard Work

The article has a strong lead, with a clear summary of the main point of the plot of the novel as well as basic information about it. It is concise and to the point but not too short.

The content of the article seems to fully cover the book, and from reading it I feel like I got a clear picture of the main points of the novel. The character section does a good job of showing the traits of each of the major and minor characters. I cannot think of any major content that seems to be missing from the article.

The article maintains a neutral tone and never seems like it is trying to convince the reader of anything. It provides an objective summary of the plot without inserting any personal opinions on the novel. The only opinionated parts are in the reception section, which makes sense, and those opinions come from reviewers who would be considered reliable by Wikipedia.

The article currently has eight sources, most of which come from well known, reliable sources. The links work and the information included is supported by the sources.

The article is well-organized and the sections are divided well. I did notice a few minor typos when I was reading it, both of which were in the “Background” section. The first is “the Syrian civil set a nation against itself”, which seems to be missing the word “war”. The second is “as both show that war effects the normal life”. In this case “effects” should be in the verb form of the word: “affects”. I also think that the opening sentence of the plot summary should use the verb “lies” instead of “lay” since the rest of the summary is in present tense. Otherwise, the article is nicely structured.

The article effectively employs the use of an infobox, which includes a lot of relevant information. One way to potentially improve the article is by adding an image or two if possible to make it more visually pleasing.

--NicholasDennison (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Other Peer Review of Death is Hard Work

Lead evaluation: Strong lead paragraph. A few minor grammatical changes could help, such as editing the second sentence to say "it was translated into English and published on February 12, 2019..." or the final sentence in the first paragraph to say "they must travel through war zones and are constantly stopped at checkpoints." Other than that, the lead is concise and to the point briefly stating the plot, characters, and an award it received. I would recommend maybe including a short sentence on the theme of decay, seeing how that is one of the headings later on in the article.

Content evaluation: All the content looks solid to me. Despite not having read the book, the plot appears to be thoroughly summarized and described. The characters are well-described and their importance to the story noted. I would personally change the heading of "Analysis" to "Decay" or "Theme(s)", seeing how there entire section is about decay. Other than that, the article appears very good content wise. If possible, the "Reception" section could benefit from some extra content, but I wouldn't say it's mandatory.

Tone and balance evaluation: The tone is, for the most part, neutral and focuses on simply stating the important facts about the novel. The tone in the "Background" section could be a bit sympathetic to the plight of civilians affected by the Syrian Civil War, but it isn't blatant and holds up fine.

Sources and references evaluation: All mandated eight sources are present and used in the article and each link works for me. Every source is also current, each being from no earlier than 2019. Most also appear to be reliable sources of info as well. Although I would add in more content for both the first source and the eighth source. Each has one citation and doesn't add much to the article. I'd say a bit more information from each would benefit the article greatly.

Organization evaluation: Yes, the article was easy to both read and understand. There were a few typos and minor grammatical issues that could be improved. The typos I noticed were the word "War" missing from the second sentence in the Background section and the word "being" instead of "begin" in the fifth paragraph of the "Plot" section.

Images and media evaluation: There are no images in the article. A viable image of the book's cover in the info box would make the article more visually appealing.

New Article Evaluation: There are at least 2-3 reliable sources referenced in this article ranging from an interview with the author to reviews on the novel from both Westerners and Middle Easterners. The info box has plenty of links to other articles.

Overall evaluation: Well, seeing how this is a new article the overall quality has indeed skyrocketed. The article is exceptionally easy to read and understand. It covers both the plot, characters, and themes really well. The tone is also really good, with the slight exception of maybe one or two iffy areas. There are also a couple typos and grammatical changes that should be made, as well as a little more content on two of the sources. Other than that, this is a really solid article. Rmb7i (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The plot summary is about a paragraph or two loo long - you might consider shortening it. Under themes, remember that you are not allowed to analyze. Someone else in one of your sources must have mentioned each theme. Then you must reference the source. This is EXTREMELY important. *Yseut229* (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexander.Larabie, Char.daigle. Peer reviewers: NicholasDennison, Rmb7i.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)