User:Ramirez4422/Poppet/Tania-ctz Peer Review

General info
Ramirez4422
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
 * There is no lead except the peer.
 * The peer does leave an introduction of what the Poppets are by stating their purpose.
 * The peer uses headings to separate the body paragraphs but I do suggest either putting them in bold or underlined or larger font as it blends in with the body paragraph
 * Compared to the Poppet article on Wikipedia the peer has added more information yet kept information such as “Poppets being used as kitchenware figures”
 * Although I do not think it’s overly detailed. Some sentences I feel like should be shortened or combined, such as the introduction maybe saying: “Poppets are used for good and bad. A good Poppet can [example] and a bad Poppet can [example]” or something like that

Content
 * The content is relevant to the topic, and the peer states different types of Poppet and goes into detail about them.
 * I can’t see the peer sources on the sandbox nor the bibliography, so I can’t tell if the information they’re using is up to date

Tone and Balance
 * Compared to the Poppet Wikipedia article that is published on the website, it mentions its different names, such as “Poppit” or “moppet, mommet, pippy.” I would suggest writing the different names of it. Additionally, you can add the etymology of the word if the source is reliable such as the one that is stated in the published article. If you can find or have a source that mentions how having the object connects with witchcraft since you uses the word "witch." I suggest having the title Magical Gingerbread Poppets and the types of Gingerbread Poppets as a subheading, that way, the viewer knows it is related to that topic. If you can find a website or image of these examples, it would let the viewer know what the differences or similarities they have.


 * Since I can’t see where they got their sources, it makes the writing seem not neutral because there is a lack of evidence to prove if it’s factual or neutral.
 * There isn’t a biased position; however, the good poppet is over-represented, and the bad Poppet does not have examples compared to the good ones. However, it does not persuade the reader to favor one's position because the peer does not state their opinion at any point.

Sources and References


 * Unfortunately, the peer I’m reviewing have yet to add their sources it could be either because they have yet to add them or is having trouble citing their sources on Wikipedia. I cannot confirm any of the questions, such as if the peer is using reliable sources or not.
 * Chapter 5 mentions Poppet, and the footnotes have sources related to that you can research and see if it’s possible to find those sources. As I was looking at the Poppet Wiki article (not the peer), I noticed they have a table that relates to magic and witchcraft. Maybe if you haven’t already searched for “Poppet witchcraft” or “Poppet Religion.” https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/ARCH310/Readings%20for%2022%20Dec%20and%2012%20Jan/Gordon%20and%20Simon%20Magical%20Practice%20in%20the%20Latin%20West.pdf#page=194


 * Here are some sources I found in our CSUSB library not sure if you have used them already: https://csusb.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CALS_USB/16jhnn6/cdi_proquest_ebookcentral_EBC1787641
 * https://csusb.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CALS_USB/16jhnn6/cdi_jstor_books_j_ctvq4c07x_67
 * https://csusb.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CALS_USB/16jhnn6/cdi_proquest_ebookcentralchapters_5476268_13_48

Organization


 * The peer did a good job of being concise, and since it’s a rough draft there is some improvement they can make for example moving around sentences such as the introduction sentence of the section “Magical Gingerbread Poppet,” they can change it to: “As holidays are celebrated in modern times…”
 * There are a few spelling mistakes that I’ve noticed such as: moblie, geoligocal, ogirginated, Scandinianvia, Popserity. I do think that some sentences with commas should have a period instead like: “A poppet can be designed to be for good. Some good wishes that can be manifested…”

Images and Media


 * Peer has yet to add images

Overall Impressions

Overall the peer has added more information about the subject however I think they should keep some of the stuff that is in the published Poppet wikiarticle. The peer has added different types of Poppet and it strengthened the content or article. I stated already what they can improve on like fixing grammar mistakes, fixing some sentences, adding information from the original wikiarticle, and citing their sources. If they can connect it with the witch trails that could possibly strengthen the article too. I hope this helps!