User:Smm323/Aztec religion/OpabiniaEnjoyer Peer Review

General info
Sam Much- Smm323
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFyQ3AstomZwyq2dQxbBOGkq0ybzGyIFwpmWNh-Um6E/edit?usp=sharing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Aztec religion

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article as it stands now, before Sam and her group's changes, is facing the same issue as all of our articles: complete lack of sources. While the content on it seems good, it doesn't cite anything, so I can't trust it. The general plan to source it is good, but also don't be afraid to rewrite or remove unsourced information if you can't find anything that supports it.

Sam is focusing mostly on the cosmology section and adding sources. I think this is a very strong plan-- she has ideas about how to handle the differing versions of the myth of the five suns and other myths. One suggestion I might make is that the information on sacrifice in that section of the article is all spread out. Could the stuff in cosmology potentially be made into its own sub-header in the sacrifice section that talks about its role in cosmology? It just feels strange that there is info on sacrifice scattered throughout the cosmology section, and it comes before the large section on sacrfice. I suggest either merging the cosmology sections into a coherent paragraph or moving it.

It's not mentioned in the draft, but Sam also said that she was thinking of changing the section that is essentially a list of Gods. If possible, I think it would be better to source it rather than remove it completely, as it does seem like useful info. That being said, it's better to have less, higher quality info than more unsourced info, especially since this doesn't necessarily add much discussion. They're also listed at the bottom in the Aztec mythologies part of further reading, so not much is lost.

I really like that Sam is planning to replace sources with more "official" ones, such as academic blog that cites a source with the actual source. This helps make the actual information/author more accessible and improves clarity.

Definitely talk to Sarah about the pantheism/polytheism/etc debate. It seems a bit too complicated for me to get into in a peer review, but I can see that being a major thing. It's not discussed a ton in the article, so it's a good knowledge gap to address. This could also be a good area to talk about the class differences-- maybe make an entire section on that debate, and bring this up there? It seems like it may not be a yes or no answer, but instead be different to different people.