User talk:Ctweeten/sandbox
Gina's peer evaluation[edit]
Hello. I've read over your drafted article. Your article's format is perfect and overall the tone sounds neutral. I am impressed by your prose because it sounds impressive but is easy to understand. I also like how you have a variety of new information to add to the article, instead of just focusing on one section.
One issue to consider is how the critical reception section seems a bit unbalanced. Even though it praises the novel, the content seems to focus on the negative reviews, which may come off as biased. Consider incorporating a critical review that is mostly positive so it counters the negative reviews.--Gdalrymp (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheyenne's Peer Review[edit]
I think you guys did well in formatting the article and that it is coherent and well thought out. For the most part, the article was unbiased and well balanced. There were some points where I thought some bias was coming through though. One example I noted was in the Gothic horror section, you mention the "horrible" crimes. While the crimes may be horrible, it could be seen as a slight bias. One other minor note is that I think you should cite the Encyclopedia of Literature since you us a definition. I don't recall seeing the source with your other sources and there was not a direct citation, which I think could be useful if some one wanted to check for themselves.