User:Danielhur01/Alexander Mosaic/VivecaFitz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Danielhur01


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielhur01/Alexander_Mosaic?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Daniel! I have some thoughts that might help but it seems like you're off to a great start!

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant. It goes much more in depth into precise aspects of the Alexander Mosaic.

Is the content added up-to-date? It includes many modern articles. Much scholarship comes from 2001-09 and it seems that this is pretty up-to-date for where scholarship on this topic is currently at.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't see any content that does not belong. You briefly mention the 1830s rediscovery in your first paragraph. That's a great point to bring up and I think I would enjoy reading more about public response to the rediscovery if this information is accessible. i.e. how did this influence art at the time, effects on tourism, etc

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? I'm not totally sure how to answer this question but these article additions bolster information about a topic that had little or inaccurate information. It also explains aspects of the relationship between Persians and Romans that had previously been marginalized.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? Yes. It is descriptive without bias.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I can tell. It discusses Greeks, Roman, and Persians in neutural tones. It also clearly cites information. This helps differentiate towards where there may be academic debate and where there is universal fact.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it gives a pretty clear and concise view of both the art and history behind it.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. It is fact-based and informative.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, every major new piece of information has a citation with link. This is very helpful in a) checking the veracity of each claim and b) going deeper for further research.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes, it boils the information down to its essence.

Are the sources thorough? The sources are very scholarly and thorough.

Are sources current? Yes, very current. They are all written in the 2000s on. One was even written last year.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? They are all scholars of different ages.

Are there better sources available? It seems that these are the most reliable sources for this topic. I think Andrea Faber may also have some useful information.

Links? There are links and I found it very easy to access the articles.

Organization, Images, and Media

I found the organization clear. It flowed well between sections. Moreover, the diagrams are very clear and helpful in visually comprehending the information. I would love to see more color images- maybe some Greek comparisons if possible.

Overall Impressions

How can content added be improved?

This is a small detail but in the "Alexandra Exedra in the House of the Faun," practice is misspelled as "plactice." (P3, S2).

Also I would like more information here (if anyone has the answer) - "The mythical Greek picture that served as the basis for the Alexander the Great Mosaic dates back to circa 315 BC and depicts the same subject matter." (P1, S1) Which Greek picture?

It seems like Dwyer mentions Hoffmann quite a bit so it might also be good to directly cite some of Hoffman writings if there is a translation. I think Faber might also comment on Hoffmann's work (that might be another good source to explore).

What are the strengths of the content added?

Concise details that paint a comprehensive picture of the work without overwhelming the reader. I especially like "The first peristyle dominates the house not only visually and functionally, but it also commands the design, determining the locations and the dimensions of the other major parts." Your last paragraph on contextualizing Greek and Roman paragraphs also does a great job at making key comparisons with relatively few words. It's quite difficult to discuss these topics with minimal word count so well done! I think you've done a great job providing a fuller picture of this work and I'm excited to read your final edits!