Talk:Longbourn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:16, 9 November 2017

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlh3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Migottlieb.

Novels Unassessed

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Peer Review Notes (by Mgottlieb): All the information currently listed is relevant to the article and article topic, though the information is underdeveloped in several areas. A goal for the article editor would be to expand this article past the summary and reviews, and perhaps either add much more additional support, or bring in an entirely to facet to this article. Perhaps a comparison section to Pride and Prejudice would be useful. For the most part, the article is neutral, but I wonder if you could provide reviews that were not positive, as well, to keep it even more balanced in the reception of this article. Furthermore, as the reviews currently listed are not explicitly dated, providing more current reviews would be helpful, as the novel is relatively new and assumedly still discussed. You could also compare the reviews of this novel to the other many fan fictions written about Jane Austen novels. All of the links work on this page, which is great. While facts are backed by sources and links, however, some of the sources used are questionably reliable. For example, Christian Science Monitor's Top 10 book list does not necessarily serve as a credible source. There is no direct bias, but unreliable sources distract from the points of this article.Migottlieb (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:20, 2 October 2017 edit Migottlieb (talk \| contribs) 81 edits Update Jane Austen Bits to Bytes assignment details Tag: dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.0] ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:16, 9 November 2017 edit undo Migottlieb (talk \| contribs) 81 edits m Peer Review of Longbourn Next edit →
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{{WikiProject Novels}}		{{WikiProject Novels}}


			Peer Review Notes (by Mgottlieb): All the information currently listed is relevant to the article and article topic, though the information is underdeveloped in several areas. A goal for the article editor would be to expand this article past the summary and reviews, and perhaps either add much more additional support, or bring in an entirely to facet to this article. Perhaps a comparison section to ''Pride and Prejudice'' would be useful. For the most part, the article is neutral, but I wonder if you could provide reviews that were not positive, as well, to keep it even more balanced in the reception of this article. Furthermore, as the reviews currently listed are not explicitly dated, providing more current reviews would be helpful, as the novel is relatively new and assumedly still discussed. You could also compare the reviews of this novel to the other many fan fictions written about Jane Austen novels. All of the links work on this page, which is great. While facts are backed by sources and links, however, some of the sources used are questionably reliable. For example, ''Christian Science Monitor's'' Top 10 book list does not necessarily serve as a credible source. There is no direct bias, but unreliable sources distract from the points of this article.[[User:Migottlieb\|Migottlieb]] ([[User talk:Migottlieb\|talk]]) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)