User:AncientWeapons/Pausanias of Sparta/143737k Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ancient Weapons (Pausanias of Sparta)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AncientWeapons/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Most of the content they added was in the introduction so yes the lead reflects it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead is very clear in describing the articles topic focus more on later sections.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does provide a good intro but should clearly state the individual parts of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes I would try to move some of the content in the intro into its own section later on, from there mention that section in your lead to tie it all together.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Its overly detailed on a few things try to clean it up keep it as just a lead move data into sub sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all the info added is relevant and beneficial.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes all content appears to be valid and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Many of the sub topics need to be expanded as well as possibly may want to add one or two more sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes content is neutral however make sure to state when data is a closest estimation or an actual fact as many of the sources are not 100% certain on dates etc.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No bias as far as i can see just make sure to remain non bias especially in the wars never forget that this is always the Greek view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would say all viewpoints are well covered of course it focuses mainly on Sparta and Athens may be worth giving Tegea more time.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Nope provides a very neutral and strictly information based feel.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I dont see any citations I may just be having trouble viewing them but you will definitely need citations for the stuff you have added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Don't see any so cant tell.
 * Are the sources current? Again cant tell.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? NA

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes easy to read no problems grammatically as far as I can tell.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope looks good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but make sure to keep the sections even sizes as you build them out and add new ones, make sure you lead gives each their own intro to.

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 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? Yes you have improved the article but it does need a lot more to really take it to the next level I'm sure with more time it will look great.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Really good job providing strong facts and data just make sure to follow up with citations.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just add more and follow my earlier tips and advice.