User talk:Mooreilly/article draft

Leticia Arellano Peer Review

Lead: This was a very clear and concise intro, however it would be best to cite the US translator Gregory Rabassa. By taking a glance at it I feel like I am very well informed on what you have chosen and it was straight to the point. Structure: The structure is great, however when it comes to the bullet points perhaps making them a bit shorter will look best. Cut out unnecessary words within the bullet points. Overall: I think this is going great! By adding a few touchups to the bullet point area and changing up the intro a bit, then it should be ready to post on Wikipedia!

Andrew Calvin Peer Review

Hey I just looked at your article and I want to say you have a great topic and I can't wait to learn more about it when you finish the article. First off, I want to start by telling you what I like about your article then I'll delve into the specific sections of your article, what I thought you did extremely well within your article is the clear structuring of your article which makes it easy to follow what is going on within the article and understand what you will write about later on.

Lead) 1)Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead of your article is starting off good but I feel that it does not display the importance of the topic. 2)Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Again, the lead does not reflect all the important information that is being discussed within the article but I know it's still being worked on 3)Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Your lead is good in not giving weight to more parts of the article than others but I feel it is missing information that can help the reader understand what your topic is about.

Structure) 1)Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Your structuring of the article is great and clearly shows what you're going to discuss further down in the article which is awesome so keep that up. 2)Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Nothing in your article seems off-topic and it is clearly all related to what you're talking about. 3)Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The article does seem to be missing a bit of information.

1)What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The changes that I would suggest is to make sure that your lead clearly shows what the topic is about and covers the most important information you will discuss, also I saw that you had two sources which is good but it would be better to have a couple more so it does not seem like it is biased towards one viewpoint. 2)Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I really liked the way you structured your article it is extremely easy to see what is going to be discussed next and is something that I could apply to my own article.

Overall, you have a great topic and the structure is on point I know you are still working on the article so most of my comments are something you're most likely working on right now. Your article is comming along great keep it going and it will be awesome. Acalvin1 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalvin1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)