User:PastaRL/Pyxis (vessel)/Paragonicus Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

PastaRL

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PastaRL/Pyxis (vessel)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Pyxis (vessel)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead provides plenty of general information on what a Pyxis is, and your addition to it adds more clarity. I do wonder about the final sentence of the lead, which talks about the variety among Athenian pyxides, yet does not go into any specifics on what these varieties are. Perhaps this would be a place to do more research to answer the question.

Structure

The article structure of the original version (that you kept) is fine. However, there are some concepts from the lead that might warrant its own section in the article Right now, there is a section about types, but the lead talks about material and exact names of the pyxis. These are both possible ways to expand the article through the addition of new sections on these topics.

Coverage Balance

Overall, the article has a lot of information about Athenian pyxides, which is probably to be expected. However, there are hints that there is a greater non-Athenian world of pyxides throughout the rest of the article, including regions outside of Greece such as Etruria. There may be further research to do on pyxides outside of a Greek context.

Content Neutrality

The article avoids the use of biased language, and some language is constructed in a way to promote neutrality (e.g. "evidence suggests"). Since this does not seem to be a very controversial topic with many differing opinions, neutrality could be regulated as a secondary concern.

Sources

For the length of the article, there seems to be an adequate number of sources and most assertions seem to have a footnote. I wonder if the age of many of the sources here could possibly make some of the facts in the article outdated; maybe we have a greater understanding of pyxides in more current scholarship. I also believe there are some technical errors in the footnote list that I would not know how to rectify.