Crocaholic

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Crocaholic, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Crocaholic! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Crocaholic, 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
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

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. It is very thorough.

 Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the

most important information? Yes. It overviews her genealogy and the main aspects of her myth. The last few sentences of the lead do sound a bit abrupt. Perhaps revising these sentences to flow better would be helpful? I would add a detail that she "later" murder her owns sons after the King and his new wife. Also I would wikilink to the articles about King Creon, Creusa, and King Aegeus. The last sentence of the lead "It is not known how she died, Medea being a mythical character" could be revised to say something about how it varies by myth/author.

 Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing?

Is anything redundant? No.

2. 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)? No the order makes sense.

3. 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? No. There is a ton of detail but its all relevant.

 Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are

any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

 Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular

point of view? No.

4. 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 it is pretty informative and neutral.

 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..." No.

 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.

5. 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? Yes, no.

 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. No.

 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! None I found.

Misc:

-This sentence In Genealogy section does not make sense "As she becomes older, Medea marries Jason and procures together, they have children."

-Some wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles could be added still.

-Read the article outloud to find some grammar/sentence clarity mistakes.

-In the lead Medea is abandoned by Jason for Creusa and in the myth section it is Glauce. This is inconsistent?

-Your links to references seem to be off by 1 number. Example: "Recounting the many variations of Medea's story, the 1st century BC historian Diodorus Siculus wrote, "Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvelous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out." it referenced as 17, but in your reference list that source is 18.

-You have a good amount of references, congrats!

-The detail given is impressive. Overall good job! Just read through it again outloud and you'll catch some things that need to be revised. Hope my suggestions help :) --Matisse123 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)