User:Old Crooked leg/Cyclopes/Optimistic Learner Peer Review

General info
Crooked leg
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Old Crooked leg/Cyclopes
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cyclopes

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here are my peer review notes.

 Lead 


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There doesn't seem to be any much new content added. The Lead looks rather similar to the original article. There are hardly any changes, so maybe use different wording? I think this will add new character to the edited article. It also looks like some citations are needed for some of the information in the Lead section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead does have an introductory sentence. It clearly explains what Cyclopes are.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead appears to be concise, informative and professional. It focuses on Cyclopes, its origins and the plays that have them as characters.

 Content 


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is very similar to the original article. I just think that writing more in-depth will help.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I noticed that only the poet Nonnus was being mentioned, while in the original article it also has Hesiod, Homer, Euripides, Callimachus, Virgil, and Apollodorus. I was curious about this. Will you be only focusing on Nonnus? If so, what is the significance between Nonnus and the Cyclopes? If you do mention Nonnus, I think it will be great if you can provide more information about him, like a brief description of his life so that the audience can learn more.

 Tone and Balance 


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content and tone does seem neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The tone of the article is very good. It only focuses on the information about the Cyclopes.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Compared to the original article, the edits seem to be a bit underrepresented. I think adding some more information about the Cyclopes (Like more their origins, the plays, their significance) would balance the new article more. Also, I think that the Possible Origins section of the article can be necessary. Maybe add some information about Cyclopes coming from Sicily? There is an image provided about that, but it doesn't look like there is not much mention of Sicily in the Possible Origins section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The content is concise and informative.

 Sources and References 


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It was kind of difficult to tell. There are hardly any sources in the References section or in the article. The source from Topostext does look reliable, as it is nonprofit and promotes Greek arts and letters.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) I checked the direct quotation from the Topostext source (2.565) but I was a bit unsure. The quote is a direct quotation but doesn't seem to be in this part of the source.
 * 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.) If you need more sources, JSTOR is a great place to find peer-reviewed articles. I checked JSTOR and a bunch of articles about Cyclopes appeared! The Western library database is another place to start as well and the Perseus Project is another option to consider.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links for the sources provided do work. I also noticed that you wrote that you needed some help with the citations. It is a bit tricky. A good idea would be to ask for help from the Wikipedia Education staff. You can ask them on the Wiki.Edu dashboard where the Get Help button is. If you click on that and then click on the question about editing Wikipedia button, you can then send them a question. They helped me correct my citations, and it was wonderful! I am sure that they will help you edit them.

 Organization 

 Images and Media 
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content was a bit difficult to read. The article draft section does not have any writing except for a source in the references section of the article. Most of the writing has been completed above it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the Possible Origin section of the article, the word "paleontologist" is misspelled (This has already been noted in the article). Also, in the Etymology section of the article where it says, "since a single circle-shaped eye was set in their foreheads". The word "since" needs to be capitalized, and the period has to be placed after "foreheads." Another example is in the Etymology section where it says, and the "wheel of the sun", The word "wheel" needs to be capitalized and comma needs to be after "Sun," not after the quotation mark. Any periods or commas placed right after quotation marks needs to be edited.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the moment, the content is slightly organized. However, it does have sections. This just needs to be edited in order to look neater.

 Overall Impressions 
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? One of the images provided shows Sicily, where it is believed that the Cyclopes come from. I think this is a good image to use. Another image shows Euripides. I am not really sure whether the image of Euripides adds much to the article. If you are focusing on just Nonnus, then I think an image of Nonnus would be better! I think providing an image of a Cyclopes would be great so the audience can have an idea of what they look like.
 * Are images well-captioned? The captions for the images provided are a bit informal. It appears that these will be edited later.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are in the bottom of the article. I believe that moving them up will be more appealing because the audience will see it right away. It appears that this will be edited later but the images chosen so far are appealing.


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel like the original article has more content and more images. For now, the article does not seem more complete but there is some progress being made!
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved with some grammar mistakes being fixed. An image of a Cyclopes would be necessary because the audience can see what Cyclopes looks like. Most of the content needs to be organized as well. Adding more information and sources about Cyclopes will make the article seem more complete too. There are already efforts shown on trying to improve for this article, so I am sure that once this is completed, the new and edited article will look awesome!