User:Wwustudent712/Ariadne/Iphigenia in Tauris 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
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead needs to be edited to include the new information for the festivals, and adjusted to include the information regarding her life as a goddess. It is definitely a last touch to add to the end of the edited article though!

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, absolutely. Concise information regarding Ariadne is added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, newer articles are used in the citations.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * N/A all applies.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Touches upon one of Wikipedia's equity gaps in that the student has added information for a lesser known festival for a female deity.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content added is neutural, unbiased, and provides clarity on Ariadne's happenings and her life. I like how the student adds where the different views and stories can be gleaned from whether it be hesiod or homer. The overall tone is good.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Definitely, good sources added.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * The primary sources are from ancient history. The secondary sources are up to date articles.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There are a couple of articles that seem to be from a news site instead of peer reviewed (like the one from the collector) but other than that, they look really good.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 *  Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? 
 * In the festivals section, the sentence added: On the second day of the month Gorpiaeus during these sacrifices, feels a little unclear, I think that perhaps adjusting the wording of this sentence would help it be more concise and understandable to the reader.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, absolutely. The added information provides more details for Ariadne in various ancient sources.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The addition of Naxos and specific names, as well as details in the festivals lead to a stronger article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Just a little reworking of some sentences as mentioned above, otherwise, the additions are fantastic!