User:Daboom148/Croesus/Areleah 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?

Daboom148

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daboom148/Croesus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Croesus

Evaluate the drafted changes

1) Lead

Lead is unedited, but seems okay. The inclusion of the detail about his modern name doesn't match with his actual ancient Greek name is interesting, though I'm not sure if it's important enough to include as 1/3 of the lead. Still, I'm not sure exactly where else in the article this tidbit would fit, so I'm inclined to say it's fine where it is. Everything else in the lead makes sense when giving a broad overview of Croesus as a figure.

2) Content

No real complaints about the content of the live article, which I understand makes editing that much harder. I can see in your sandbox you want to include more about Croesus' time as advisor to Cyrus, and have a potential example sentence to back that up. I think this could be a good area for you to expand the article, if you can find a source with more information on it. What you've got now is a great start, but it feels a little barebones. Well-covered topics are difficult to find significant amounts of new info about, so if this is all you can get, I think it's fine, but more never hurts! Especially considering your other edits are more grammatical in nature as opposed to real content additions.

3) Tone and Balance

I would caution you to be careful if you pursue the "Croesus had a part in Cyrus' death as he was the one that encouraged Cyrus to attack" angle. While it's true, it also somewhat implies that Croesus wanted Cyrus to die, which I'm not sure is true or something your sources could confirm. Again, what you have now is fine and unbiased, I just wanted to warn you that there may be some accidental implications that could pop up as you write more about this. The main article as it stands now is fine in this regard, so nothing to worry about there.

4) Sources and References

Herodotus is definitely going to be one of the best sources for info on Croesus, so it's good to see you've pinned him down as your source, though perhaps you could find another one as well? Not essential, but it could lead to uncovering more information, and would make for an even more well-rounded article.

5) Organization

While the article is mostly clear, there are definitely a few instances where it can get grammatically confusing who we're talking about. You've done a good job of pointing out a few of these spots in your edits, helping the overall clarity of the article. Otherwise the article's structure is almost entirely an overarching biography in chronological order, and I can't fault that choice.

6) Images and Media

There are quite a lot of images on the Croesus page, none being new additions. Frankly, I don't think the page really needs any more images, so it's totally fine that you aren't adding more. The many different art pieces illustrating different parts of Croesus' story help give a visual aspect to the history/legend as I'm reading it which is helpful and appreciated, though some images like the croeseid don't really add much, in my opinion.

7) Overall

The article looks really good to begin with, and you found a few concrete ways to improve it, which is great. Dig in to that Croesus/Cyrus interaction you wanted to explore, but be careful to keep things neutral! Good work with the grammatical fixes, that's something that many (including myself) would overlook by accident.