User:Iitzelrod/Parecclesion/JZilch Peer Review

General info
Itzel Rodriguez
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
For the lead it has been updated and provides further information on parecclesions. The introductory sentence does clearly describe what the topic of the article is, however I think the “to start off, what is parecclesion?” part may be excess that can be taken away. The lead does bring up major section points, like the “Chora” and “Pammakaristos Church”. However, I think “ceremonial and funerary purposes” could be elaborated on more and maybe possibly be a section of the article. The lead is concise and does not overly detail anything.

When it comes to content, the “Byzantine Art” section is relevant to the article’s topic, but I feel like it needs to be tied more into the topic rather than seeming like general information about art. “How does Byzantine art become incorporated into parecclesions?” could be a talking point in this section to tie in a bit better. The content that has been added does seem up to date and provides current understandings of the topic. I do think that the article could benefit from having more information explaining architectural aspects of parecclesions, as well as the ceremonies held in them. There are not any wikipedia equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics in the article.

The tone and balance of the article is neutral with no biased opinions. The article doesn’t contain any material that is heavily biased to a particular position. I think the viewpoint of the purpose of a parecclesion is underrepresented and could be expanded on. The article does a great job at staying neutral and factual, which doesn’t sway the readers position on the topic.

The sources and references utilized for the article come from reliable secondary sources. The sources used also properly relate to the topic and aspects of the topic. The content of the article does a great job of reflecting the source. The sources are mostly current with some being slightly older. The authors of the sources vary in diversity. While i think the sources are good and reliable, I also found one that seems to bring some information of a parecclesion example that is not evident in the article (link provided at the end). All the links in the reference section do work properly.

The content of the article is written well and concise, something that might be beneficial is linking things like “ frescoes” to other wikipedia articles so if readers aren’t sure what that is they can go to that link and learn more. The content has no grammatical errors that I've noticed. The pre-existing information has been edited as well, such as the caption of the image. The image does enhance the understanding of the topic while adhering to the regulations of wikipedia’s copyright. The organization of the article is good, I see that there is intention to add more with the “Pammakaristos Parecclesion” section and hopefully more onwards like the example i found, the ceremonial and funerary purpose, and architecture.

Overall, the content added has improved the article from its previous state. The strong aspects of the article are the examples, which give insight to pareclessions more. The added content can be improved by the inclusion of more examples, and more explanations on architecture and utilizations of the space, if possible.

Link to the example i found: https://mappingeasterneurope.princeton.edu/item/the-transfiguration-fresco-at-zrze-monastery.html