User:Cthetree/Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus)/LegoOrchid Peer Review

Lead:

The additional lead is concise and related well to the topic. Introductory sentence is strong. There seems to be no new content other than a description of the item. Are you planning on keeping the epigram section? It appears that this new lead combines the first two paragraphs in the currently published wiki article. You may want to add a brief description of the articles sections like the manuscript traditions and printed editions, but you mentioned authorship which is good.

General Overview: Did you create this section to shorten the lead? Some of the information in this section is repetitive of the lead, it may be beneficial to combine the two but if you are going for a condensed lead, keeping them separate works. All of the content is relevant to the article and gives a great overview about what the bibliotheca is.

Content:

Great breakdown of the books contents and sections. All of the other articles you linked are relevant and beneficial to this article.

Authorship: Why did you delete the sentence about the Castor the Annalist? Did you find this information to be outdated? This is a strong section and is definitely important to the article. There seems to be a lot of reframing but no much new information, this could be expanded and you could address the previous mentioning of authorship arguments from the original article.

Manuscript Tradition: Again seems to be a lot of reframing but not much new information. The reframing is good and flows well, there is room for more detail.

Printed editions: Good choice to move the section about Sir James into this header, it makes more sense in this paragraph. Strong additions to the end that are up to date.

Tone and Balance:

The overall tone was very even and neutral. The are no claims that seem heavily biased and all viewpoints seems to be evenly represented.

Sources and Reference:

The citations seem to be unfinished. i am not sure who or what Aldrich is and this seems to be a prominent source of your information. the ones that are added with full description appear to be up to date, thorough, and relevant. There is room for more diverse authors and an overall expansion on your sources and references for this article.

Organization:

Other than what i have already mentioned regarding the lead and General overview, the organization of this article is put together well and is easy to follow. There are no noticeable grammatical errors and the sentence structure flows well.

Images and Media:

There is room to add another picture, maybe in your printed editions sections you could find the cover of one of the books and add that into the article.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)