Talk:The Drowned Book
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Dr Aaij (talk · contribs) I think this has "enough meat" to be put out to the public, but can definitely be given more content. I just don't want to attempt to move it and cause issues like you stated in class.
Untitled[edit]
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): User:Cjefferys.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Note[edit]
Hmm--this is kind of all over the place. "Style" seems like just a long quote (without reference), with one unsourced observation about the lack of rhyme scheme. BTW I don't see the articles from the Spectator and the Independent. You should consider writing a short section on the publication history (the reprint)--Helen Dunmore wrote the introduction, but you don't mention her. Via Google Books I could see that at least two of the poems are organized in tercets, and that has everything to do with Dante. Plus, what is water that is "unclean" and "full of emotions"? That needs clearing up as well. The "Water, water" reference has good stuff on content, and you pulled some from it, but you can get more, and involve more of that terminology--including that of the environment. A clear description of the content would be a good start. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review by Classmate[edit]
Hello fellow classmate! Your article seems to be at a good starting point. However, it lacks content explaining more about the book. Note that some questions a reader may ask are: Who are the characters, are there any plots, any other themes, the content in the book itself and why did the author write the book. Overall, the article is at a decent starting point but could use some extra work.
Lead[edit]
The lead gets straight to the point of the purpose of the article and why the book should have an article. Very strong lead.
Structure[edit]
The structure for the article is good, except for the "Style" section. In the "Style section", the stanzas have no set style themselves.
Balanced Coverage[edit]
The coverage is lacking a little because it doesn't give well information about the poems in the book. Knowing about the themes and styles in the book are good, but you could add some information about the different poems.
Neutral content[edit]
In the "Style" section, the sentence that says "The poems are written using hyperbolic language to make different forms of water relate to different aspects of human emotion" is not a very neutral statement because it is bias towards what the hyperbolic language does as a style of writing.
Sourcing[edit]
Article has great sources that are reliable.
Thank you for the article.Makaveli334 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
Lead[edit]
The lead gives us the author and title of the book. It also notes the original publishing year, the year of the re-print, and the awards the book has won.
Structure[edit]
The article is divided into several appropriately titled sections. In the Style section, apart from a direct quote from the collection, there is only one line of text. There could be more said about the way the book was written. Also, information presented in the Awards and Critical Response section is redundant.
Perspective Balance[edit]
All the topics handled within the article are given the same amount of coverage. But you could've gone more in depth about the relation of the poetry to water or why he chose to re-write a classic work of prose in this way.
Neutral Content[edit]
The article isn't written in a way that condemns or praises the poetry collection except for the Style section in which you state "The poems are written using hyperbolic language". Otherwise you note what critics have said but draw no conclusions of your own.
Sourcing[edit]
The article is well sourced, using various literary critiques and an interview with the author himself describing his response to winning the T.S. Eliot Prize.
Good job!