User:Anonymouse678/Minos/Charlie Sewall Peer Review

General info
Anonymouse678
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Anonymouse678/Minos - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Minos - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Overall, I think what you've added and changed has improved what is in the original. The grammar and link fixes make this article much more easy to read and eliminated the confusion I felt reading the unupdated sections.

Lead:
I like your lead. I think moving that second paragraph out was a good move to take out unnecessary information. I think that the section you removed about the naming of Minoan civilization would be a great fit somewhere else in the article.

Clarity/Organization/Content:
The separation of sentences in the "family" section make both sentences not work. They need to be together (or more needs to be added to both) to properly describe his relation to all involved individuals. I think this may be a helpful place to put a citation as well.

Hyperlink updates are great.

Mythological Minos has some wonderful grammar updates and sentence fixing. It's much easier to read now. I think it needs some citations. The updates in the literary Minos section are also very nice.

Astronomy section is good but needs a citation if different than the original article.

The image looks good and adds a different view than what was already in the article. Good image + good caption.

I think the Theseus section could use some rewording. The second sentence in particular looks odd. Generally, it needs footnotes.

If possible, a picture of a coin depicting Minos would be a great addition to the Minos in Art section as they are the first thing mentioned. I think writing about the art piece you found and how it relates to the pieces present in the original article may also be useful here.

There are some named individuals that may need their wiki link attachments added in. I specifically noticed Theseus and Poseidon, but I think there were a few more.

Coverage/Balance:
It looks like you have some good coverage of different sources throughout the article. There is a good mix of primary and secondary sources in both the original and the draft. No one source feels too prominent.

Content Neutrality:
You addressed some of this issue in your updates and removed the problems. I saw a bit in later rationalization (more colorful character). Other than that, it looks like there are no more.

Sources:
Sources look pretty good. I would go back through and check what is in the original article as reference 21 looks to be somewhat loose and could use a check or update. Generally, I think the article could use some more footnotes or just another look through to see what might need more attention in terms of citations. Many of the original paragraphs have one or zero citations and most are at the end of the paragraph. Spacing these out throughout may lead to more useful citations and a more fact-checked article. I noticed this mostly in the sections Later Realization, Minos in Art, and the sections of Mythological Minos that you have not edited.

Some of the same sources are also cited multiple times with different page numbers in the original (which could be updated to a general source citation to reduce the number of references)