User:Obevo/Temple of Apollo (Delphi)/Wafflecone14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Obevo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Obevo/Temple_of_Apollo_%28Delphi%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section

Lead section overall makes sense and is presented well. I feel as though I understand importance/cultural significance. The last two sentences could be a bit clearer -- I generally appreciate the details you've added to the draft, but I think the sentence structure could be improved slightly for better flow.

Clarity of Article Structure

I like the beginning structure of lead, location, to architecture. It helps situate the reader in where we are and what we're looking at. Your section on "Historic Use and Importance" is comprehensive and well organized within, but I feel as though maybe a slightly different title could benefit (i.e. Purpose or Function). Additionally, I think sub-categories within architecture could be helpful, it is so full of important and relevant information but it looks mildly daunting with its current state as one big chunk of text. The general flow of the article is intuitive, though!

Coverage Balance

Overall, the article reads as relatively balanced, comprehensive, and neutral. I didn't feel as though the article was pushing me towards any one perspective or opinion. I do think that there could be more information in the mythology section -- there is one part that says "pther myths", I feel like this could be expanded. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the Pythia section needing work as it does stand out a bit in terms of overall coverage. I think the excavation section isn't too bad, actually, especially considering your mentioned struggles with sources/translation.

Content Neutrality

The article doesn't read to me as one specific perspective/viewpoint. There are a couple of moments that I think could be improved by more specifics/backing up with sources to remove possible bias (for example, in the location section, "perceived as an incredibly sacred [s]ite, considered a major center of ancient Greek religious practice and belief as well as a place intimately connected to the gods." -- this makes sense in the article, and it does have a source attached, but I would like to know if this is one person or if this is widely accepted and how do we know? Just my thoughts. There weren't any other places that jumped out to me as unjust claims/statements/negative/etc.

Sources

There are a few places I think could use additional sources. I did see your end note about citations so I don't have much to add that I'm sure you're not already aware of. As I've mentioned above, there were just a couple of places that were a bit too general (in my opinion!) or referenced groups (like writers or historians) that I didn't view as having quite enough backing to be making the vague/bold claims. I hope that you have better luck with your citations in the future, haha, I'm in a similar boat and it's a struggle but it's so important for the article (love/hate was relatable).

Overall Impressions

The article as a whole looks pretty solid to me. There are definitely places that could be improved by sources or by some minor reorganization, but generally it is easy to understand/follow and presents a comprehensive overview of the site. I wish you the best of luck with the rest of the project!

(Not the point of this assignment, but I did notice some grammar/spelling things. They didn't affect my understanding of the sections but could be beneficial to have another once-over to catch them before finalizing the article!)