Talk:Bride and Groom (book)

Untitled

The lead provides information that is not restated in the remainder of the article and it briefly introduces the article's topic in a concise manner. I find that the lead does tie loosely to the major sections but I would consider making those descriptions more identifiable. Overall, I do not find the lead to be overly detailed and find it to be mostly successful except for the line listed in the evaluation below.

The majority of the information provided in this article I found relevant to the book and the subject matter. However, I would cut the phrase "who had translated one of Ganieva's works before" from the introduction as it pertains more to the author and translator than the book itself. The content appears to be up to date and accurate from what I have read of the sources. I would consider adding additional information on any potential awards the novel has received because it was mentioned in this source that was already referenced: http://deepvellum.org/product/bride-and-groom/. I think that will add more variety to your article and flush it out more.

The article does not seem to have much of a bias or favor a position of any sort. When the "themes" and "cultural significance" sections and flushed out this may be an issue that you will have to tread carefully around. I would recommend that for each theme or critique you provide opposing perspectives or make sure that it is very clear that those interpretations are subject to the bias. Of what is written so far, I believe the article is neutral and balanced.

I found that when clicking through the links embedded in the article, some of them were empty and lead nowhere. I was unsure if this was due to the fact that those references were only intended as place holders for future links to be put in or if there was an error. I would go through and check your embedded references ( particularly 1, 2, 6). The remaining links worked well and the sources provided appeared to be current and relevant. The embedded references that did have working links appeared to be appropriate. Some of the sources appeared to be very brief but those that were contained unique information so I found them to still be appropriate. I would consider adding more sources to the "synopsis" section of your article as it seemed to lack any references and this would remove questions regarding personal interpretation. Overall, I found the sources to be appropriate but I would check the references listed above and add more to the summary section.

The content is very easy to read and seems to be divided in a logical manner. I would recommend though that you consider revising phrases such as "for some reason" to make your article more concise and formal. I would also consider combining the sections titled "themes" and "cultural significance" as it appears that will have many overlapping talking points. This may help the overall structure of the article by making it appear that you have larger, flushed out sections rather than very brief, small sections. I am also unsure if the romanticized title needs to be capitalized and italicized. Overall, I find the organization to work well for the article and the writing to be appropriate and effective.

This article contains no images. I do not find that the article necessarily needs images to enhance any understanding. However, they may make the article more visually appealing to the reader if you can find images that are appropriate and usable.

The sources seem to show a variety. I found some to be argumentative essays on cultural issues that referenced the novel while others were more direct analysis of the novel. I think this variety is appropriate and useful. The article appears to have an appropriate amount of sources to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The article does follow the generic layout and structure I have seen in most articles. The article does contain links to other wiki articles so that it may be more discover-able but I would consider attempting to find more places to include links. Overall I found this to be on its way to being a successful new article.

I found that the article is still incomplete but the resources to finish it are available in the sources already included. I think the main strength of the article is that there seems to be a lot to discuss in terms of themes and cultural impact which could hopefully help in increasing external article links and the overall thoroughness of the article. Because the article seems to still be in the works, it is hard to say what content can be improved but I would strongly urge to expand on the influences or general themes of the novel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GarrettTonos/Bride_and_Groom_(Book)/Scucchiara01_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Scucchiara01 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Savanna

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): GarrettTonos, Supsiplit. Peer reviewers: Clarkwilson1, Scucchiara01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead section looks great! Maybe take out the information on Apollonio and add "translator" to the infobox. Also, you have the original Russian name of the book, so I would have that as your title with the english title redirecting to it. For example, the page on The Romance of the Rose says: Le Roman de la Rose (The Romance of the Rose) is a medieval French poem..." I'm guessing the romanticized title would be used, but I'm not 100%. Other than that, the lead is clear and concise.

Besides adding the translator, the infobox has plenty of information. I would wikilink Ganieva's Wikipedia page within the infobox as well.

The content is relevant to the book, and I think once everything is added it will look great. I think the synopsis should be the first section, preceding publication background, themes, and cultural significance. You could merge themes and cultural significance together under "analysis" for a larger, more concise section. If you have any more information on how Apollonia wrote the book, you could combine it with the publishing section and change it to "background." Maybe add something like "awards" or "critical reception" to have four content sections.

The tone is overall very encyclopedic and neutral without any bias for or against the novel. Grammar and syntax are also great. Just a few very minor adjustments in the synopsis:

- change "Dagestan Russia" to "Dagestan, Russia"
- "our main characters" to "the main characters"
- change "hot on the heels" to something like "pursuing" or whatever you think best describes Marat without using an idiom.
- "25 year old" to "25-year-old"
- "blindly and wholeheartedly embrace" to "blindly and wholeheartedly embracing"
- remove "of one another" after "romantic interests"
- "Word quickly spread" to "Word quickly spreads"
- change hyphens separating clauses (-) to em dashes (—)

Sources look good with lots of citations within the text. They're varied in content and have credibility. Just clean the reflist and merge into one list, but I'm sure you were going to anyways once you used all of your sources.

There are no photos, but if you can figure out if you can use the book cover without violating copyright, add it.

Awesome job! I think you guys are on the right track.

Clarkwilson1 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

May be too wordy - try to simplify sentence structure and eliminate unnecessary words and clauses.

Themes - under development? remember that you cannot do the analysis. You are relying on your sources to speak :: of themes. Then cite those sources. In the info box - say Publisher In the Synopsis. ONLY third person. No ‘us’. No slang “hot on the trail’

No contractions. Maybe something on the Critical Reception? Where are the missing references? See if you can get that figured out *Yseut229* (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Language still needs to be simplified/clarified to sound like an encyclopedia. *Yseut229* (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)