User:Nulifeforme/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Irish mythology - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was able to find credible sources at my library with information that I believe will be useful to the page. I also wanted to pick a topic that was not the most popular but may gain some traction should more information become available. Lastly, Irish mythology is a topic I know nothing about so I thought it would be a great opportunity for me to learn something new.

Evaluate the article
Peer Review: Irish Mythology Review by: Nulifeforme

Lead Section:

·        There is a clear description that accurately summarizes the topics, format and point of the article.

Content:

·        The article has up to date and relevant information.

Tone and Balance:

·        The information on the page remains neutral throughout and does not appear to have any emotions or personal thoughts tied to the material.

•     The sections on “heroes” and “legendary creatures” does seem to be underrepresented. I will complete further research to contribute more to these subtopics. I have selected Retzlaff, K. (1999). Ireland: It's myths and legends. Metro. And WILLIAMS, M. A. R. K. (2018). Ireland's immortals: A history of the gods of Irish myth. PRINCETON UNIV Press.

Sources and References:

·        There are secondary sources missing for most of the information. I will work on improving that those that with the literature listed above. If I find any other credible sources, I will include them.

Organization and Writing Quality:

·        Overall, the article follows an organized flow, and the quality of writing has had minor update since it was originally posted. The talk page shows a history of cleaning up grammatical errors, and I haven’t found any others thus far.

Images and Media:

·        The artwork is displayed neatly and in line with the flow of the article.

Talk Page Discussion:

·        Most recently the talk page has history of deleting spaces, correcting other small grammatical errors. Over the span o the article information has been added and photos have been rearranged to flow with the page better.

Overall Impressions:

·        My overall review of the article is good. It has an “S” rating, so it is off to a healthy start. I hope to be able to give it the secondary sources it is lacking along with adding supportive information to the sections that are underdeveloped.