User:Wikieditor1685/Kernos/MysticMythos Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Wikieditor1685


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Wikieditor1685/Kernos


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is looking really good. It seems to thin out information that belongs elsewhere and leaves the article with a clean and concise lead. One concern of mine is that it doesn't seem to relocate some of this information, but rather takes it out entirely. I would propose it be added to the newly drafted section on uses.

The proposed new additions to the article are looking good too. The new sections should really help it feel more complete. Speaking of those, they feel really well organized. I noticed a few issues with reading flow, so I'd suggest giving it a read out loud to catch those, but it's not super noticeable. Those are also mostly due to past contributions it seems.

There doesn't seem to be any blatant issues with viewpoint coverage imbalances, but there might be one. I'll talk about this more in the section about sources.

It looks like a good jobs was done keeping tone neutral. The Language used does not insinuate a correct or incorrect viewpoint, nor does it place undue or biased importance on anything in particular.

It appears looking for decently recent and reputable sources went well. I did have a couple sources I found myself raising an eyebrow at though. Hellenicgods.org seems to be a good place to find sources, but maybe not legitimate all by itself. The use of the Biblical Archaeology Society also had me a bit concerned, as the article is about a ritual vessel and a biblical archaeology publication may have biases that it presents about the topic that could be negative in tone. It can certainly still be used, but I'd recommend caution in making sure it doesn't influence tone.

I think that this article is on track to be a lot better than it was. Looking at the planned content to be added past this peer review stage, I think the project is coming along great. It still needs images and some content needs sourcing, so it's difficult to say if all material is referenced quite as it should be, but I think it looks like it will be given the state of the bibliography. Overall, the key recommendations I would make would be to double check the sources I brought into question, make sure the information removed from the lead has a place elsewhere if it's still supported, and maybe reassess the quote currently in the literary description section. It may not be formatted correctly, but I'm not an expert in quotations so I would get an additional opinion on that.