User:Secotuff/Gorgon/Studiesin... Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Secotuff


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Secotuff/Gorgon?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gorgon

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has been updated to reflect the edits made from my peer. The information was well-sourced and without bias. I appreciated the hyperlink pertaining to petrifaction in the first paragraph. The lead is concise and does not contain unnecessary information. However, I would add a line about the Gorgon's healing powers in that first paragraph so it mentions all of the information in your body paragraphs.

The content provided is relevant to the topic. I do not feel that there is any content missing except for maybe a more detailed description of their origins if that can be found. I do feel that the article accurately discusses equity gaps in the tale of Medusa, without bias.

I feel that the article has been very well cultivated in tone, and holds no biases. I think that all viewpoints have been represented equally and accurately. After reading the edits and the entirety of the article, I feel that the tone is informative, and not to state a claim or argue any points.

I wonder if the information under Descriptions could have more citations? It is really great information, but particularly in the first three paragraphs I do not see any sourcing. The five or six links that I checked all worked swimmingly. The content under these citations was accurately represented in the article, and I saw no discrepancies with the information provided and what was written in the actual source. Some of the sources are a bit dated, but that is to be expected when reading about the ancient world.

Overall, I think the organization of the article was well done. The article was easy for me to understand, and the headings accurately depicted what was written below. I would say there were a few grammatical errors (as to be expected in a rough draft), but a quick run through grammarly should fix that right up!

The pictures provided all follow Wiki guidelines and were visually appealing to look at. The editor did not add any additional photos, but that was the original articles strong-suit, so adding more might have made the page too busy. Great choice to leave it as is!

I do think the content has added to the articles overall quality. It added more detail in the way of Perseus and Medusa, which is important. The article was already pretty well-done in the first place, so props to you for adding relevant, interesting, information! I particularly found the myths behind the Gorgon's healing properties to be a fantastic addition to the article! The strengths of the added content is its relevance to the topic. I would say that if there's anything to improve about the content it would be organization and making sure you source all information. Great job! -Studiesin...