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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: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
(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.)

Lead

 * The lead of the article has been added to an corrected in the sandbox.
 * The lead's first sentence very concisely describes the the topic of the article.
 * The lead makes note of the main article sections, Life and Identity and Poem Analysis
 * The lead does not mention anything not included in the following sections of the article
 * The lead seems concise and presents all the information needed for the current article

Content

 * The content seems to be relevant to the article and poet. There is no extra information, just the identity of the poet and her sole poem.
 * The content also seems to be up-to-date. Information has been corrected as well.
 * All the content in the sandbox seems relevant to me but maybe the poet's poem could be included, or part of it, if it is their sole work.
 * According to the sandbox, the poet is generally believed to be an unknown woman, which may qualify it as dealing with Wikipedia Equity Gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * I would say that the sandbox content is almost completely neutral. There were only a couple of individual words that I felt could be less subjective.
 * I did not notice any particularly biased claims or many claims at all. The article makes it clear that there is mystery regarding the subject, and there are many different perspectives regarding it, as well as a general consensus. Content does not look biased nor does it look like it biased in which information it presents.

Sources and References

 * None of the sources are primary sources, and all look to be reliable sources.
 * The accessible sources matched the information presented in the sandbox.
 * The sources are from a diversity of authors and seem current and representative of content about the subject. I am not sure if sources from female authors exist for this topic.
 * All sources look to be the most reputable ones that are also in English
 * Links are working

Organization

 * The added content is fairly concise and also well-written.
 * I did not spot any blaring grammatical error or spelling errors in my reading.
 * The major sections of the article are in a logical order

Image and Media

 * There are no instances of images or media that enhance the topic

Overall impressions

 * My overall impression of the article is that it is concise, well-cited, informative, and unbiased. It sounds like there is not a lot of information to go off of regarding the poet, so while I believe the article/sandbox is brief, there is not much more that could be added easily without going into complex detail. I would try to incorporate some images or maybe her poem to enhance the information in this article. It might also be useful to look into more reputable translations to contrast them and find translators who have worked with the text itself. Overall, I find this sandbox/article to be strong and nearly ready to be incorporated into the main article. I would also make sure the references are in their own subheading. Otherwise, it looks great, and I think it will make a great start to the article!