User:Crocaholic/Medea/Matisse123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Crocaholic


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


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section – will state the most important information, give good overview of the

rest of the article. It will be concise but avoid repeating the article content.

 Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes. It is very thorough.

 Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the

most important information? Yes. It overviews her genealogy and the main aspects of her myth. The last few sentences of the lead do sound a bit abrupt. Perhaps revising these sentences to flow better would be helpful? I would add a detail that she "later" murder her owns sons after the King and his new wife. Also I would wikilink to the articles about King Creon, Creusa, and King Aegeus. The last sentence of the lead "It is not known how she died, Medea being a mythical character" could be revised to say something about how it varies by myth/author.

 Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing?

Is anything redundant? No.

2. Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear

and distinct section

 Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense

presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? No the order makes sense.

3. Coverage Balance – the article should be a balanced summary of existing resources without

a dominant viewpoint

 Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there

sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? No. There is a ton of detail but its all relevant.

 Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are

any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

 Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular

point of view? No.

4. Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or

view

 Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No it is pretty informative and neutral.

 Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea,"

"most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist

that y." No.

 Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example,

"some people say..." No.

 Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral

doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear

reflection of various aspects of a topic. No.

5. Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources

 Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and

journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, no.

 Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an

unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No.

 Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find

stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's

presented accurately! None I found.

Misc:

-This sentence In Genealogy section does not make sense "As she becomes older, Medea marries Jason and procures together, they have children."

-Some wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles could be added still.

-Read the article outloud to find some grammar/sentence clarity mistakes.

-In the lead Medea is abandoned by Jason for Creusa and in the myth section it is Glauce. This is inconsistent?

-Your links to references seem to be off by 1 number. Example: "Recounting the many variations of Medea's story, the 1st century BC historian Diodorus Siculus wrote, "Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvelous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out." it referenced as 17, but in your reference list that source is 18.

-You have a good amount of references, congrats!

-The detail given is impressive. Overall good job! Just read through it again outloud and you'll catch some things that need to be revised. Hope my suggestions help :)