User talk:Leezaq/Sandbox2

Lisa - - You've moved some stuff around and reformatted some parts. But, what are you adding to the article? I can't see any substantive changes. Now, is the time to finish drafting so that we can peer-review.

SAbundis, Elantris

I couldn't see much addition to the article, but more re-arranging, and making the sequals more presentable. Sources and verified citations only surround the Reception and Sequal section to article, which are the only additions I could find worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjabundis (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds interesting! I'm not sure if it would be too biased for a wiki article, but maybe you could also touch on some criticism this has received, since it looks like you included reception. Is there any other reoccurring themes or motifs through this? I only ask because you included a section for the Aeons. It sounds good! I think the information about the characters was good. And there are a lot of sources - catie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catiekirk (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

late peer review big sorry

holistic review: awh damn you're setting the bar damn high. content wise it's great, definitely a good book article. I understood the story and all worldly things surrounding its release.

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? Unbiased, nice
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it has a credible reception section.
Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Citations are good and reliable, mostly coming from educated people.
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? Some sources are wack. Using websites that authors can edit themselves are somewhat shaky. Many sources come from the author, other people reputably reviewing the text is preferable to author's own FAQ. Places like kirkusreviews are wack, but it's a fantasy book. I doubt you can find better sources. Not optimal sourcing, but great for what's probably available.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No, it has a lot of good sections. Other books don't have as much of the release, etc. That's good.

nitpicks:

the terms the author(Shaod, Reod, cursed) uses shouldn't be in quotes, especially because the character summaries aren't
punctuation wise, commas should go inside quotation marks (british english does it your way, but most pages I've seen do it inside)
Aons section has weird syntax. You should make it more clear; starting the paragraph with the word symbol makes it unclear if you're using the literary reflective word or the magic word. Perhaps try: "Aons are the magical symbols that the Elantrians use for their powers."
"Near the end of the book," in the Aons section is unnecessary
Reception section should be elaborated. One sentence each person is wack

overall, dope as hell. gj! tristan Ahugebox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]