User:Wafflecone14/Brauron/Obevo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Wafflecone14


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Wafflecone14/Brauron
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Brauron

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section:

The editor currently has not made any revisions to the lead. While I agree the lead is well-rounded, if anything it might have too much information and it seems to lack citations in some sections where they would be needed, such as the third and fourth paragraphs. Besides that, the lead does a good job of emphasizing the importance of the site.

Clarity of Article Structure:

Currently, I think the article has a decent structure, and I believe the editor has plans to group the topic of Vvavrona into one major section divided into subsections, which I think is a great idea. My only other suggestion might be moving the discussion of the archeological work done at Brauron into the sections that talk about the modern-day site and its use. Besides this, the article's structure seems fine!

Coverage Balance:

The article covers a variety of different topics, and while some are denser than others, I do not think it's without merit and seems proportional to their importance and connection to the topic covered. Nothing seems to stand out as being widely off-topic, though while Vvavrona might be important for the site, it is arguably off-topic for our class and the content we have been covering. In general, it would be the main thing that is off-topic both for the class and the article as a whole, especially the commerce-related topics in the Modern Vvavrona section.

Content Neutrality:

There is nothing that jumps out as not being neutral to me, nor does anything come from unnamed groups or is too negative or positive. The only thing that sticks out to me is, again, the section on Modern Vvavrona, but that does not seem entirely relevant to this specific class and can either be removed or not necessarily addressed.

Sources:

The current draft does not have any citations though it does seem like there will be some later carryover from the original article. That said, the editor seems aware of some problems with the citations and their proper use in the original article, such as their discussion relating to Pausanias' writings on Brauron, or lack thereof. There are some sections of the article, both edited and original, that are notably lacking citations and I think that would be a great point to focus on going forward if it is not already planned. While the editor is aware of this and seems to be considering focusing on these sections, the lack of citations is especially true in the sections about the architectural structures of the sanctuary at Brauron, and although they are dense with information they lack citations.

Overall Impressions:

I think this is a good start, and the editor seems to have a solid understanding of the steps they want to take going forward. As they mentioned, the original article has its strengths, and I think it has a lot of potential for nitpicky refinement, and I am looking forward to seeing where this goes!