Talk:Baltic past and present

Peer Review
I have finished your peer review. I have it copied and pasted here. Hope it helps!

LEAD: The draft's lead section seems to not add much to the article's current lead section, but since the article's lead is so long (in fact, the entire article in its current form), it is good that focus is placed on the body of the draft. In fact, I would suggest that a small part of the current article's lead should get moved to the body of the article, since the lead of this article, especially in as niche of a topic as is covered, would suffice at one (lengthy) paragraph.

CONTENT: At large, the content is well-tuned to the article's topic, but a couple points could simply get summarized to make the body, on average, more relevant to the topic. The currently empty section on Baltic history, for example, should mostly include the parts of Baltic history relevant to the region's mythology. Additionally, the section on Baltic holidays would benefit from additional information relating those holidays to any relevant myths. The bulk of the added information, though, is relevant to the topic at hand and provides further, in-depth information.

TONE AND BALANCE: Since the draft's current state consists of an outline rather than the draft's final wording, tone is difficult to judge, but from what is present, the tone seems neutral and represents all major viewpoints. Balance is similarly done well: in later drafts, the section on Baltic gods and goddesses would benefit from additional information about each, but the article is otherwise balanced well.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES: The sources listed are diverse and applicable to the article's topic, and each seems reputable. My only criticism is, in the section on Baltic religion, the draft says that few Baltic people are Catholic, though the source cited states that around 75% of Lithuania's population is Catholic. Another point is, in the current outline, citations are scarce. I assume the citations at the end of a given section are the main reference for the whole section, but citations should be more frequent and taken from different sources if applicable.

ORGANIZATION: Overall organization and order of topics is well done: the draft is broken into major sections, and the order of the sections and subsections flows well. The current outline has several grammar errors, but since this is only an outline, this does not impede on the article's message.

IMAGES AND MEDIA: The current draft has no images yet. If good ones can be found, the article would benefit from one or two.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS: The current draft is strong. It has a couple of issues, such as how some of the topics are somewhat tangential, needing additional information to make them relevant to the article's topic. The draft has few clear citations, and transitions between subsections are lacking, though I assume each of these will be added later in drafting. Despite these points, the draft's overall structure is well done, and the balance and topics covered mesh well with the topic. The additional information, once fleshed out and implemented, will make the article much more complete than it currently is.

EstricPolearm (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)