User:Epichippo/Larnax/Cthetree Peer Review

General info
Epichippo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hazelsvest/The_Trojan_Women#Article_body
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trojan_Women

Evaluate the drafted changes
Review of Larnax article by Cthetree:

Lead

The lead is concise, and condenses the importance of larnakes. In reference to the addition of later sections, a sentence about the importance of larnax in myth could be useful. Overall the lead sets up the rest of the article well.

Content

The addition of sections that help organize information of the topic is really well done. I like the order they are in, but taking in the article as a whole could it be possible to move the section on myth to after the section on Origin and Function? The content seems up to date and relevant to the overall article with only a few tangents into related topics.

Tone/Balance

The tone/balance of the article is good and serves to inform the reader of the topic. Each section is about the same length. However, most of the information is found in the section on origin and function of larnakes. But this choice makes sense to me as it is the most general of the sections and gives a good overview of the topic. To my knowledge there are no viewpoints that seem to convince the reader of a certain argument. However, there is a sentence at the end of the section about Iconography that points to the motifs as important in being tied to shifting Aegean identity that could b considered a point of view. But because there is a note that the section is going to be expanded upon so I do not think it is an issue. There are no phrases or words that don’t feel neutral in tone and I think the article has a clear reflection of the topic that does a good job or showcasing various aspects of the topic.

Organization

The article is well organized and I felt that the path of ideas flowed nicely. To add clarity, could some of the sentences be broken up into separate claims? There are a few sentences in the section on myth and origin and function that could benefit from being re-written for clarity. However the overall organization of the article and its various topics is well done.

Media

I really liked the inclusion of images in this article to further illustrate your points about the topic. I think they really add a visual element that is important to understanding the concept.

Sources

The sources are well researched and connected to reliable sources. I think the variety of good sources in this article is really valuable. There are a few statements in the article that I think could use a citation,

- “Potentially being named after King Minos whose wife gave birth to the mythical minotaur in Greek mythology, or individuals such as Glaukos, who is said to have fallen into a jar of honey, or Agememmnon who supposedly was killed in a bath tub, there are many myths that speculate its origin and function.”

- “ During the later Hellenistic period, larnakes, in the form of small terracotta sarcophagi, became popular, some of which were painted in similar styles to contemporary Greek vases.”