User:LieutenantKennedy17/Philip II of Macedon/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?

LieutenantKennedy17

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:LieutenantKennedy17/Philip II of Macedon
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Philip II of Macedon

Evaluate the drafted changes

1. Lead

The lead seems solid, I think it does a good job of hitting all the main events in Philip II's life without getting bogged down in detail. This is a nitpicky comment, and I'm not sure if you were already planning on changing this or not but the header at the beginning of the article, with the picture of the bust of Philip II, has all the dates still as BC, and since you're changing them to BCE you're gonna want to make sure you go in and add an 'E' to all of those dates in the header too!

2. Clarity of article structure

Article organization is good, good call with moving the marriage section above the Assassination section, I think it makes more sense and it flows a lot better.

3. Coverage balance

I think your overall coverage is good in each section, I was thinking it might be beneficial to add a bit of detail within the article on the Illyrians (first mentioned in the "Youth and accession" sub-section of the biography). I know you have the hyperlink to the Illyrians article in there already, but especially since they come up later in the "Early military career" I think it could help provide the reader with a little more clarity on who they are, even if it's just a short little throwaway line about where they're from.
When it comes to providing a variety of viewpoints I think this article does that very well. Especially since there is uncertainty surrounding his assassination, I think it's definitely necessary to provide as much information on the differing viewpoints as possible, and you do a good job of that.
- Though I recognize this might just be impossible because there isn't information on the subject, maybe in Justin's analysis you could include some information/detail in that section. It mentions that Olympias returned from exile to place a crown on the assassin's corpse, but why was she exiled? Why would she have been grateful to Pausanias, was she wronged by Philip II? Perhaps that information could even be included in the marriage section under her bullet point.

4. Content neutrality

You stay consistently neutral within the article, making sure to attribute any specific views to the specific people or groups that have them, and all your language is neutral!

5. Sources

You have so many varied sources! Wow! You did a good job providing sources for each new piece you added, and even fleshed out some areas, like in Cleitarchus' analysis and the Modern analysis, where citations were needed, so awesome job there. I thought it especially good that many of your sources are pretty recent, mostly from the last 20 years or so, though you do have the occasional source from like the 1800s, but those make sense within the context of the article, so all in all it's a very well done reference list!

6. Overall impressions

You did an awesome job with this! Honestly just from looking at your sources I can tell you put a lot of effort into researching Philip II and it shows in your additions to his article! The sections you worked on are clear, comprehensive, and flow really well! Reading through the original article and your sandbox draft side-by-side, I really enjoyed seeing the changes you made and the additions you had, especially when you rewrote some lines from the original to make them sound and read a little bit better. Altogether it was a very enjoyable read, nice work!