User:Sunfloweryellow007/Telesterion/Serkatet Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * User:Sunfloweryellow007


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sunfloweryellow007/Telesterion


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

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The biggest question I had when reading both the proposed edits, and the article as it currently is, stem from the addition to the lead, "no one revealed what happened during these events." Considering the information provided in "Rituals/Religious Use" section, I think perhaps either elaborating on this claim in the aforementioned sub section would be a good idea, because its a little confusing to read that and then be presented with information about these events that we were just told no one revealed information about. If that makes sense.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I feel like it does this a little bit, but I think there's room to add a sentence more related to the history subsection.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kind of, referring again to my first question about mysteries and our knowledge about the events that took place.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? For the most part it is good, however I'm uncertain what major relevance Persephone also being known as Kore has to article as a whole?

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? For the most part, see above comments about inclusion of "Kore".
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There are a couple of sources that appear to be old, but I believe the information drawn from these is still up-to-date, so as far as I'm aware the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? See my comments about maybe elaborating on mysteries and the events associated with them, maybe clarifying where the information about mysteries comes from, and what the events are that we know of and how these relate to greater lack of information about these religious activities. (I don't think I'm phrasing this too clearly, so if you have questions about what I mean, I'm happy to discuss on the talk page, feel free to tag me)

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? I think the tone comes off neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This may be the case, but I don't know enough about the topic to be able to tell one way or the other.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? See above comment.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? If it does, I don't think it's intentional, but again I don't know enough about the topic to be able to tell right off the bat.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? As far as I can tell.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? From the sources I've been able to access, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? From what I could access and in my opinion, yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes and no, but the information on at least one of the old sources doesn't seem to have changed to my knowledge.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that are there work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There were some sentences that I feel like could be phrased more concisely, however for the most part everything seemed pretty clear and easy to read. I'd recommend reading aloud some additions if the Editor has any questions about readability of a given phrase. Many of the readability issues also stem from minor grammatical errors, see next question.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? While I'm not entirely sure whether it was the content that was added or the content that already existed, there were various minor grammatical issues. I fixed a couple that I saw right off the bat, but Editor should definitely give it another read through to do some copy edits before adding the content to the official article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, although I am curious about the choice to change "Religious Use" section title to "Rituals", especially considering how in the lead it is stated that no one revealed what happened in the mysteries? I'm a little confused by this. Additionally, while the part discussing myth and the origins of the rituals and the mysteries is very important, I'm wondering if it may be a good idea to create a new section for Myth? You can probably get by with keeping it as is, but it seems a little off topic to keep it in a section titled "Rituals", if that makes sense? I might just be a little nitpicky. Furthermore, I think the last sentence about Temple usage in the Rituals subsection would be better placed in the History section.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it does! However, there's definitely room to add more if desired. I'm not entirely sure what images there are available for this topic, but if you could even find a floor plan of the structure that might be helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned? I believe so, yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? So long as I'm correctly understanding Wikipedia's image usage policy, yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Overall yes, although there's a few things I think could use some adjusting, and a good round of copy edits would be beneficial.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I really like the addition of the topic of myth and its relation to the mysteries! I also thought the fixed caption was good.
 * How can the content added be improved? To avoid redundancy, I will refer you to the rest of the comments I made above.