User:Axolotl3/Feathered Serpent/EmmettForster Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Axolotl3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Axolotl3/Feathered_Serpent?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Feathered Serpent

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.)

Something might have gone wrong or I might be looking in the wrong places, but I'm not seeing any edits either in the sandbox or directly in the article from you right now, so I'll just go ahead and analyze the article as it stands!

Lead:

The lead seem fairly good to me. It is short and succinct, and gives a brief overview of what the topic is. Maybe a bit more detail could be added, such as some general dates aligning with the topic. but this is probably not completely necessary. Additionally, the tense of the lead is a little contradictory--it says that the Feathered Serpent "was a prominent supernatural entity" while also recognizing that it is still worshipped, or at least acknowledged in a religious sense, today.

Content:

Some more information could be added about the specific sites where representation of the Feathered Serpent is found; perhaps these could be new headings entirely? For example, the site of Juxtlahuaca cave is mentioned, but not much is explained about the site itself or of its significance to its people. Some citations can be added in places throughout the entire article; two specific place I noticed were the second sentence of the third paragraph in the "Description" section ("Some common techniques...") and the entire fourth paragraph in that same section ("The Aztec feathered..."). This fourth paragraph could also probably receive a lot more detail than just two sentences. Similarly, the last sentence of the article ("The evidence of the importance...") seem to me to be a perfect jumping off point to add you own research on that topic. You could also get more into some of the specific mythology of the Feathered Serpent, as this is not explained in great detail.

Tone and Balence:

This seems to be good and consistent throughout the article. Article does not have much unnecessary interpretation or bias that I have noticed.

Organization:

Because the article is so small, it's tough to comment much on the organization of it; there is not much information to organize. However, if you end up expanding upon the article, I could see benefit in not just adding information to the "Description" section but creating new headings, grabbing some of the original information, and placing that under your new section. For example, you might have the "Description" section just be a description of its physical features, and you could add an "Associated Sites" section, a "Worship" section, etc.

Images and Media:

There are already some good images of examples of its iconography; you might want to reference them/connect them more with the text, however. Additionally, some kind of map to visualize where its worship was taking place or where corresponding sites were located.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, I'd say that the main areas of improvement could be adding citations and adding more detail/information to the article, specifically regarding the important sites concerning the Feathered Serpent and the deity's mythology as a whole.