User:BarbequeWater/Minotaur/Wafflecone14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BarbequeWater


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BarbequeWater/Minotaur?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section

Editor did not include/has not made any changes to the lead. Lead in original article is short and clear. Looks solid to me.

Clarity of Article Structure

The overall order of the sections (when referencing the original article in tandem with the sandbox) makes sense. I noticed you changed one article section from being called "Cultural References" to "References in Media", which I thought was interesting. I would consider revisiting this section for clarity in organization, potentially, as the separations right now (References in Ancient Greek Literature, Other References) make sense but could be stronger. I think there could be a potential "modern" or even "pop culture", as "other" seems potentially too vague. I do appreciate the addition of the literature examples though!

* I am also assuming that the rest of the article structure/order is staying the same outside of included in your draft.

Coverage Balance

The relative length of each sections seems pretty solid to me. In your draft the section on references is lengthy, but it mostly just appears that way since it was given more focus in the sandbox and I think fits in pretty well with the article as a whole. The chosen sections within the Ancient Greek literature section provide a good spread of acknowledgements of the topic in different examples/places. There are no glaringly missing pieces/perspectives for me (as someone who hasn't done extensive knowledge on the topic but is decently well versed). I didn't feel as though the article was leading me/pushing me to believe anything. The only thing I could think of as being slightly skewed is the presentation of the Minotaur as "monstrous" and unnatural but that's not really you/the article, that's the myth itself. I thought it was worth a mention but I don't see it as a problem.

Content Neutrality

Article overall reads as very neutral. I didn't take notice of anything presumptuous or assuming. In the Interpretations section of the original article (not taken into the sandbox) there is a line about the labyrinth (and its lack of discovery) stating that a specific source myth is "an idea that is now generally discredited". I think this is perhaps too vague and I'd like a better quote or source here -- it's cited but I would prefer more than just people not generally believing it, where do we see that people have spoken about not believing it?

Sources

Generally, the sources look alright to me. I stated above one example of where I'd prefer a better source. I liked the additions of the Greek literature sources in the references section. Spread of sources seems overall good. There are no massive oversights or too many places pulling from same source, to my knowledge.

Overall Impressions

Overall, it's looking pretty solid. There is nothing that jumps out to me as needing a ton of heavy lifting. There is definitely room for improvement though! Again, I'd revisit the references section. I also think there is potential for mild improvement in the image gallery section (not currently included in sandbox) in relation to the captions. I think it could be beneficial to have what kind of pottery/medium the art is on, since currently most are simply named after Theseus and the Minotaur (though some include dates which is great). A very solid start/work, and tons of potential for a great finished article!