User:Optimistic Learner/Children of Heracles/JurassicDad35 Peer Review


 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I feel as if the section on background focuses way too much on the playwright instead of the play itself. If I wanted information on the playwright I would go to his page, not his plays'.


 * 1)  Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I believe that the article is as neutral as it can be.


 * 1)  Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not that I can see no.


 * 1)  Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Citations are much better in the student’s revised version. I think citations 4,5 and 6 are redundant, but I can see why one would want to include as many as possible.


 * 1)  Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

As far as I can tell, the sources are neutral and reliable.


 * 1)  Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

The only thing I can see in terms of “outdated” would be possibly finding a more recent source than John H. McLean’s 1934 “The Heraclidae of Euripides.”

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)