User:Thatguyfromthe6/Origin-of-death myth/Bageerah20 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Thatguyfromthe6


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Thatguyfromthe6/Origin-of-death myth


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Origin-of-death myth

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

There is no new content added. The lead includes an introductory sentence that states it is a theme in many origins. It doesn’t describe what the origin of death is but later on in the lead it does. The lead states that the origin of death myths can be found in different regions. It doesn’t state what regions will be covered in the article. All the information present in the lead is discussed in the article. The lead is very concise and to the point.

Content

No content was added but everything in the article is relevant. There was no content added but looking at the article, the sources are older but they contain the accepted retellings of the myths. When originally reading the article, I thought it needed a lot more information. There are many different regions in the world and all of them have their own origin–of–death myth. Also, the regions listed include smaller regions within it. I looked at the talk page and saw that they didn’t want to have that many examples because it would be similar to the creation myths. I personally still feel like it could use a few more regions, Creation myths include a little bit more to them than origin-of-death myths. These myths will focus on the end of life. I don’t believe the article deals with any of the equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

The content seems very neutral. It just appears to be giving information. There are not any biased claims. I believe that there is a good amount of other underrepresented regions but of the ones in the article, I think Christianity is underrepresented. There is only one sentence about death in the bible. I feel like overall some of the topics should have a little bit more information. North America was very well covered. I don’t believe the content tries to persuade or form an opinion.

Sources and References

There is no new content added. In the article, there is only one source under references, but there is a notes section that includes a lot of sources. The article cites its sources with the notes section. All the information is backed up with a source I checked some of the sources and they do line up with the information given. The sources are very thorough. They include very in-depth information about the regional myths listed. The sources themselves are older, but the information is up to date. The sources given in the article are all from peer-reviewed articles or published books. In the bibliography, all the articles appear to be peer-reviewed as well. In the bibliography, all the links worked. In the article, most of the links worked. Under further reading, that link would not open.

Organization

The content was a little difficult to read. The sentences ran on and included multiple parts in a single sentence. The content has a few grammatical errors. Just a couple of commas that need to be added. The content is broken down by region which I do this is the best way to separate it. I am a little confused why notes and references are separated. I think they should all be placed under references because the article uses content from the sources in the notes section.

Images and media

The article does already include three images that correlate to the myths discussed. I think an additional picture should be added up top near the lead. The pictures are captioned well. They also adhere to copyright regulations. The images are laid out near the region they correlate with. I think the pictures would look more appealing if they varied in size.