User:Camsara99/Minerva/100145119d Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Camsara99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Camsara99/Minerva

Lead evaluation
The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content. The original article does not have details on the Capitoline triad in the Lead nor does it mention Minerva not being a patron of violence. The Lead also did not mention how she was depicted. The introductory sentence has not changed as it was good in the original article. There are descriptions about the article's major sections in the Lead. The topics mentioned in the Lead are all mentioned in the article, nothing is missing. The lead is concise. Even though it is long-the article itself is long.

Content evaluation
The content added to the article is relevant to the topic. The user added a new section about Minerva's presence in mythology. The content added is up-to-date with the citations and the information. The user included three sections about Minerva in mythology with three other mythical characters. There is not any content missing, all of the added information belongs to the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
All the content added is neutral. There are not any claims that appear to be biased towards a position. Everything added by the user is neutral and is written only to inform the reader about the topic, not about a particular viewpoint of the topic. The viewpoints are normal, none are over-represented nor underrepresented. The content added does not persuade the reader in any one position.

Sources and references evaluation
All of the new content is backed up by reliable sources. The only issue is that all the information about Minerva and mythology is from one source. There is a lot of new content added about Minerva and mythology therefore it might be better to have more than one source for the information provided. The sources do reflect the available literature on the topic. The oldest source is from 1994. Therefore the sources are current. All of the new sources added work besides the first one. When I click the link it does not go to an article, it goes to a website.

Organization evaluation
The information added is well-written and clear. It is easy to read and does not go off topic. There is only one spelling error in the new information added and a couple grammatical errors. The spelling mistake is the word "environment" in the "Minerva and Arachne" section. The new content added is well-organized and broken down into three sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation
The new content has made the article more complete. The section on Minerva and mythology has made a good improvement. The strengths about the new content is that is gives the reader a good perspective in how Minerva was written about and gives brief summaries of her stories in mythology. The content could be improved with photos of Minerva from mythology. There were no photos added to the existing document.