lots of progress wow just a few thoughts reccs do with as you will nice significant adds of content kind of leading to following a on the myth section you've kind of got stuff at both the front and at the beginning that contrasts versus ovid i would move that stuff you have on top of ovid that is comparisons and then put it down integrated into the later section cut the summary of the summaries nuke that so it would go equals myth no writing equals ovid then equals other myths within ovid maybe add some comment about metamorphoses being wildly popular rs avail in wiki article for that at the time and that ovid s version is has become the familiar version of t he myth to present day people then all the story telling i like how you've got more meat in other versions but take it even a step further give me some dates let me know if any of the versions were known to have influenced each other or ovid don't explain a negative but if there is anyhing mentione it and discuss all the differences in story you have that b not perfect but would stick the guardian comment in interprectation at beginning or end it's commentary on the myth not literature c i like the in article discussion of myrrh you will get some who kvetch but the two are so linked and the term so strange to the modern ear i might move all the myrrh stuff except the latin name so the biblical notes and acnient usage and stick it at the end of etymology and origin follows well after the myrrh myrrha word linkage and explains the substance a little earlier in article so doing more good only bad thing is you lose the connection to the image of myrrh could just switch back to lady bug though donno if there is a way to fit two images in that tiny origins section you do have pics of the tree anyhow in the form of her transformation d there are some things i remember missing now if that is intentional editorially fine e prob needs a new logic edit and new copyedit