User:Wwustudent712/Ariadne/BarbequeWater Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

WwuStudent712


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Wwustudent712/Ariadne


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section

The lead section was slightly reorganized in a way that I think is beneficial and is a little better structured than the original.

Clarity of Article Structure

The article structure was edited, with the etymology section being moved to after the family and mythology sections. Personally, I believe the etymology section should be where it originally was, as it messes with the continuity of the article. I feel the flow of the information made more sense in the original.

Coverage Balance

I feel that the length of each section is pretty good, especially with the sizable additions to the festivals section. Changing it to be a more fleshed out paragraph with some significant information is definitely an improvement. I don't personally see any missing perspectives, but that could just be a result of not being super well-versed. The article was not pushing me to believe a certain point of view.

Content Neutrality

The article reads as neutral to me. There was nothing that stood out to me, anyways.

Sources

The sources seem good to me in terms of reliability. They all seem fairly robust and balanced. I will say the "Rewriting Ariadne" source seems fairly common throughout the article, but I'm not sure how much of a problem it is, if at all.

Overall Impressions

Overall, everything looks pretty solid. Like I mentioned, I think the sections where they were in the original makes more sense than the organization in your draft. The additions to the festivals section is great and makes it worthy of its own section rather than being tacked on to another like it probably should have been without the changes. Great job!