User talk:Ebullience10/Amores (Ovid)/UhOhSpaghettio378 Peer Review

Lead evaluation The user did not make any edits to the lead. I think the lead that is currently in Wikipedia article is a pretty concise explanation of what the Amores is.

Content evaluation The content that has been added is relevant, I like how the author chose to separate out the "Styles and Themes" section into two distinct sections. The additions made by Ebullience are also significantly more detailed than those currently present, that is likely to appeal to readers who are interested in the analysis behind Ovid's Amores.

Tone and balance evaluation The content does a good job presenting opposing views of critics and analysts on Ovid's writing, as such I would say it is neutral for examining the work through multiple facets. A lot of the interpretation happening in the article does consult the popular views of most scholars, I'm not sure if that counts as an over representation or not.  Sources and references evaluation The sources are diverse in format, a mix of books and online articles. Authors of sources are both men and women. A couple of sources are pretty recent (2014, 2016) but some others are really old being from 1964 and 2003. Links to website articles do work.

Organization evaluation The organization is good with distinct sections.The content seems well written and is very detailed, however a little more concision could benefit it. The only spelling errors are "humour" from the end of the Love Elegy section and there is an extra period at the end of Love and War. UhOhSpaghettio378 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)UhOhSpaghettio378