User:Norgusbjorgus/Sylvester (protopop)/DvDel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) @Norgusbjorgus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Norgusbjorgus/Sylvester_%28protopop%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead reflects the article content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The content is summarized, however it could be edited for more precision and neutrality (see Tone and Balance, 1). His death is also not mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Missing mention of rise to power and the vskovatyi affair, also description of death.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Properly concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All added content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Two of the citations are somewhat outdated, one is from the 20th century and the other is turn of the century. Consider diversifying citations. Some of the largest statements in the article come from the 2005 article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Sylvester's life seems to be comprehensively accounted here with sufficient detail. Maybe you could find more specific instances of his involvement with political affairs. If he was so influential there's probably some interesting occurrences of his involvement in specific political crises or undertakings which could lengthen the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, although I have a few corrections to help with neutrality and objectivity of tone.

(1) "Sylvester is known for ruling Russia behind the scenes"

-- "behind the scenes" is a bit of colloquial expression, inappropriate for wikipedia... maybe try to replace it with something else. Also, the idea that Sylvester was "ruling" russia is a very ambitious statement which could be rephrased to have less of a heavy implication. Maybe "Sylvester is known for his significant influence on the Tsar along with ...." (since this claim is cited its fine to use a word like significant).

(2) "They were simply an advisory council, and yet their hold on the Tsar was so strong they reduced him to nothing more than the chairman of their executive body."

-- perhaps there is validity to this statement but it's far too strong to be stated as a fact. Try to find a quote expressing the same sentiment if you want it to be included. The sentence that follows is a good example of using facts to illustrate his significance rather than generalizations which are unsubstantiated.

(3) "while the more guilty culprits Kosoi and Bashkin"

-- why are they more guilty? substantiate, it's kind of too unclear to state as a fact.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not particularly, all imprecise language is mentioned above.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? If there is any nuance to be had to the claim that Sylvester had so much control over Ivan, it is not apparent.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not particularly.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources are reliable but not very diverse or plentiful.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, could be expanded. There's plenty of post-1995 literature on this which would definitely be found, try using UMs website or other research search tools.
 * Are the sources current? No, see above
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Too few sources for proper diversity.
 * 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.) https://www.library.miami.edu/
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is. The edits are done below.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Largely it's fine but there's some minor stylistic errors:

(1) "Sylvester's early life is largely unknown"

EDIT --> "The details of Sylvester's early life are largely unknown."

(2) "Born sometime in the late 15th century, he was not Ivan's confessor, but likely a follower of Metropolitan Makarii, as it was he who appointed Sylvester to the Cathedral of the Anunciation."

EDIT --> The logic of this sentence doesn't make sense. There's no correlation between his being born in the 15th century and him not being Ivan's confessor (in fact you're implying that he was not ivan confessor's from birth, which is a triviality lol). I'd try and split up the sentences - --- > "It is known he was born sometime in the late 15th century. Originally, he was likely a follower of ..."

(3) "It is, however, known that he operated"

EDIT --> "It is known, however, that he operated..."

(4) "Sylvester was also pushed for nonviolence and peace with Poland-Lithuania, which ended up contributing to his downfall."

EDIT --> I think that first "was" is erroneous? Also consider "ultimately contributed" instead of "ended up" (sort of a colloquial expression).

(5) "his compatriot Fedor Kosoi were expressing there anti-Trinitarian"

EDIT --> their not there

(6) "Sylvester was able to turn this around"

EDIT --> too colloquial.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization is pretty clear and effective.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yeah! The painting is a great inclusion.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes they are properly captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I would move the painting to be as near to the part of the article where the topic is referenced.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not very exhaustive. See citations section.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes. Try finding articles where Sylvester is mentioned but not linked to and link your article once it's created.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes,
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear and informational chronology. Factual with necessary details.
 * How can the content added be improved? Could be lengthened. Diversify citations/