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

General info
Cthethree
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cthetree/Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here are my peer view notes.

 Lead 

 Content   Tone and Balance 
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. The date for the "legends, genealogical tables and histories" have been changed and corrected.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The Lead has a general overview of the Bibliotheca. This goes more into depth and has an impressive list filled with the myths that are in the Bibliotheca.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is straightforward and concise. It is not overly detailed and gives great information about the topic.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The list of myths add a lot of information about what the Bibliotheca contains. I do think that wikilinks should be provided in the list of myths for the gods and goddesses, the myths, and the events. There are few wikilinks.

 Sources and References 
 * Is the content added neutral? The content provided is neutral. There is only focus on the topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. There does not seem to be any biases. The article just focuses on the topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The content is professional and informative.


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, I checked and the sources are reliable.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The sources being used do look good. I saw some other sources about the Bibliotheca on JSTOR, which is a great place to find peer-reviewed sources if interested.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? For the sources, I could not really check because the Aldrich and Diller sources (Which have been used the most) have no link. I tried looking up these sources and I think these are books? The citation Aldrich (1975, p. 1) did not work. But the other citations (Hard, 2004, p. 3), Perseus Encyclopedia "Apollodorus (4)" and Simpson (1976, p. 1) did work. I think these citations will be edited later.

 Organization 

 Images and Media 
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is rather easy to read. However, because the list of myths is quite long, maybe bolding or underlining the numbers and the titles, for example, " 7. The Theban Wars, " would be good. There is a lot of writing, so I think this will make it a bit easier to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? For the list of myths provided, put a period after the sentence. Other than that, there are no errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is very well organized. However, I was a bit unsure whether the authorship section is in the right place. I think maybe the Authorship section should be placed right above the list of myths, because the General Overview section has information about the Bibliotheca, and then I think putting the information about the Authorship of the Bibliotheca after the General Overview section would be better.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. There is an image of the Bibliotheca. The image shows the audience what the Bibliotheca looked like, which I think is important, and that it is necessary for the image to be on the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the image is well-captioned. It states that it is the "Bibliotheca" and "Pseudo-Apollodorus." It is simple and to the point.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is simple. It is merely the Bibliotheca, so yes, it is visually appealing. I was also wondering if there were any images that existed of Apollodorus. I checked and it looks like there are. Also, maybe another image of the Bibliotheca would be cool. However, the image provided already works as well.

 Overall Impressions 


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article does look more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The general overview of the Bibliotheca is very good. Compared to the original article, the new content added gives more in-depth information about the Bibliotheca. The list of myths is another strength because the audience can see what myths the Bibliotheca contains. The corrections made in the Manuscript Traditions and Printed Editions are very good too. The authorship section and Apollodorus makes the article sound neat, as well as the general corrections made, good job!
 * How can the content added be improved? Provide a few more wikilinks to some of the myths in the list so that the audience can know more about them.