User talk:Secotuff
| This user is a student editor in Western_Washington_University/History_of_Ancient_Greece_(Spring_Quarter) . |
Secotuff, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Secotuff! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Secotuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review.
[edit]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)? Most of the sections are very well organized, yet I am slightly confused why there is one sentence about Pausanias under the “depictions” section of the article body. The reason I felt the structure here was perplexing is that you introduce this historian without any follow up for what he identified, or a quote which substantiates the purpose of having that one sentence paragraph in there.
-- 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? I really appreciate the way that this user edited the Medusa and Perseus structure of the article to A. Have it’s own section and clarify why Medusa was important; and B. To lessen the repetition which I noticed in the original published article which said “Medusa was not immortal like the other Gorgons” probably upwords four times.
- Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes it is reflective, no nothing significant appears to be missing.
- Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? It does not.
-- 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, all is well.
- 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." No.
- Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Yes, in the original and currently uploaded article there is a missing citation under the “classical tradition” section of the article, this is in the section regarding Medusa being ‘cursed’ to have snakes for hair.
- 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. No.
-- 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? They seem to be reliable sources.
- 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. Yes, in the original and currently uploaded article, it appears to me that the last paragraph under the “classical tradition” section is unnecessary and somewhat unclear as well.
- 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! All the sources seem reliable.
Side + end note: I can appreciate that this was a very long article and I think whichever user is assigned to it has done an excellent job with their work, specifically with regards to clarity and reorganization- so I would keep that up!
TheOliveGreen1234567 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (TheOliveGreen1234567 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC))