User:Sailing to Byzantium 2021/Thyrsus/KlicketyKlack 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?

Byzantium 2021

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Sailing to Byzantium 2021/Thyrsus
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Thyrsus

Evaluate the drafted changes

1. Lead

I think your lead is great - I think the addition of the thyrsus being associated with Dionysus/Bacchus was a smart choice, especially since so much of the literature and symbolism sections mention his association with the staff. One thing I might add would maybe be a line about its use following the first sentence describing what it is - i.e. "A thyrsus is...used for rituals/fetes." The Use subsection does directly follow the Lead so maybe that's just a silly semantic preference on my part, but I feel as though the use of the thyrsus could conceivably be something you mention in the lead, since it touches on the important parts of the article.

2. Article clarity

The article is pretty clear overall and your contributions flow well, but I might suggest putting Use before Symbolism, followed by Literature. It might flow a little better if you have it that way, since explaining the Use first would provide context for its symbolism and its appearance in literature. I do like the gallery at the end, I think that's a nice touch.

3. Coverage balance

As you mention in your note at the top of your draft, you have some other plans in order to more fully flesh out the article, such as the symbolism section, which I think is a good plan. Maybe one thing you could add is a short explanation of what exactly the "Bacchic dance" is, or provide some background/context on the work the quote in that section is taken from? Or if there are any other examples of the symbolism of the thyrsus you could include them, since that section is pretty scant compared to the Literature section, which is quite long compared to the other two (and rightfully so, I think!). Otherwise I think the coverage is pretty wide!

4. Content neutrality

I've got no clue what your personal opinions concerning the thyrsus are, so I think you knocked this review section out of the park! You attribute any description to a source and do a great job using neutral language and providing neutral information!

5. Sources

Nice, reputable sources, and a variety of sources otherwise! You did a good job streamlining the sources currently in the article and making them into citations that don't clog up the page but are instead hyperlinked footnotes, that does wonders for the readability of the article.
- Just as a smaller comment, I didn't see a citation or source for the small paragraph in the Literature section on Robert Browning and The Bishop Orders His Tomb at St. Praxed's Church, so if you're at all looking to add more citations you could do so there.

6. Overall impressions

Nice job! I like what you've done with the article so far, I think you've got some good ideas about where/what else you could be adding some more stuff, and what you have added, pictures included, I think makes for some great additions to the article!