User:Rine02lessthan3/Amarilis (poet)/Foucauldienspirit Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rine02lessthan3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rine02lessthan3/Amarilis (poet)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Amarilis (poet)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is effective as it represents a change in incorrect information about the date of the epistle.

The content added is excellent. It adds good information about the socio-historical context that Amarilis existed in. If possible, there could be information added about the reception of the work and its literary significance. All of the content is neutral and well sourced when paraphrased. Because there is a Content Tab labelled "Poem Analysis", the inclusion of the poem itself could be helpful and would help put into context statements such as the following one, "[t]he poem itself has neither a set meter nor a rhyme scheme, but Amarilis makes sure to rhyme the line endings to some capacity. " I also think that the label of "Poem Analysis", could (if you want, but this is really just a suggestion) be broken into a Tab "Structure" and another tab "Influence" and another for "Meaning" or "Interpretation"; that way should anyone else add more information about the different aspects of the analyses it would be easy. It would also make the article feel more robust, as you are basically writing the whole article from scratch.

The sources used are good and scholars are cited and if more information is added, you should continue with the kinds of sources you are using.

Overall, the content add was robust and covered lost of ground, perhaps organizationally the "Poem Analysis" could be broken up a little, but that is simply a personal suggestion. I do however, think that from a critical standpoint, there could be more information added about the reception, the Lead highlights some questions about the mystery of the poet, but I think more could be said about if the research is available. Nice job Rina!