User:Whatifidontwannabe/Lethe/TheOliveGreen1234567 Peer Review

Peer Review: Lethe ==

Based on the Wikipedia Peer Review Guidelines, evaluate each section as follows:

The Lead Section – will state the most important information, give good overview of the rest of the article. It will be concise but avoid repeating the article content.

- Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

Yes.

- Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

Yes.

- Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

No.

Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear and distinct section:

- Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

I really appreciate the reorganization which this user has conducted; I think structuring “Role in Religion and Philosophy” above “Mythology” which is then split into sections about the goddess and the river is extremely effective. I would then ask if “References in Literature” will be going near their added section of “References in Visual Art,” before the rest of the article continues on, unedited.

Coverage Balance – the article should be a balanced summary of existing resources without a dominant viewpoint

- Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

To me it appears that the “references in literature” section of the original posted article about Lethe are unnecessarily lengthy, and begin to go off the topic of Lethe, this part could use some editing (shortening).

-Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

I think many viewpoints have been included, I cannot immediately recall anything which seems to be missing.

-Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No.

Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or view:

-Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

No.

-Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

Under the “real rivers” section of the original posted article, the middle paragraph indicates a citation is needed, yet I didn’t see the sandbox address that section. If a citation is added, this portion would seem less opinion based and more rooted in factual and citeable work.

-Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

Under the “real rivers” section of the original posted article, it appears that the first paragraph mentions some “authors in antiquity” but doesn't provide indication or examples of any.

-Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

It does not, all is well.

Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources:

- Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

I wonder if the second reference in the original and posted article is a reliable source. Most of the references in the sandbox look adequate - yet I am unclear if the second reference in this sandbox is cited properly, as it may be missing a title.

- Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

No, this section is sufficient.

- Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

Aside from the missing citation in the “real rivers” section, the rest look sufficient.

--> Final notes: I enjoyed the additional paragraph, the restructuring near the top, and the addition of the image.

~

(~).