User talk:Geoffoliva/sandbox2

Geoff . . .I don't see much difference between the sandbox version and the Wikipedia version. Now is the time to finish drafting - - so that we can peer-reveiw.

I think the summary of the book was good - short and to the point! I think maybe you could expand a little more on the section with Mary Magdalene- I'm sure there is a lot of information on her and how the motif of her is carried in the story. Also maybe more information on the themes you suggested? Maybe you could add unbiased information on how these themes are shown in the story (but i don't know if that would be too analytical for a wiki article) - catie

another peer review

holistic review: skeleton is great. good outline of information. it needs to be filled out, though.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, all content is relevant.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Theme and placement sections are not encyclopedic tone
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, in themes only one interpretation of the text is explored and only with one sources. Needs more.
Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Citations are good and reliable, from educated sources, but only two. It needs more establishment.
Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Needs way more sources. I think the "Further Readings" section was originally a reference section. It's currently being used incorrectly.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No. Needs to be filled

nitpicks:

Barebones, needs elaboration in themes and Mary
Syntax and diction needs to be edited to reflect encyclopedia
The hanging indent in the live page is preferable to the italics and quotes
Context section is a good start but needs to be redrafted

overall, great outline but needs more content. tristan Ahugebox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]