User:Daboom148/Croesus/Areleah Peer Review

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.