User:Epichippo/Shadoof/MightyFiveEleven Peer Review

General info
User:Epichippo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Epichippo/Shadoof
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Shadoof

Lead Section
The article lead is greatly expanded from its original version and provides an overview of the mechanism of the device itself and its importance to agriculture. The mechanistic explanation of the shadoof might be too in-depth for a lead section, and could probably be slimmed down while still retaining key information about the subject; the line in the first part of the lead about the origins of the shadoof might also work better at the beginning of the last part talking about the device's impact.

Clarity of Structure
The order of sections (Lead/History/Design, Function, and Efficiency/Social Effects and Technological Impact/Names/Gallery of Shadoofs around the World/In Heraldry) mostly makes sense, though some sections could probably be rearranged or combined for better flow of the article:


 * Switching the order of the "History" and "Design, Function and Efficiency" sections would better match the suggested revision to the lead section noted above
 * The "In Heraldry" section might work better as a subsection of the "Social Effects and Technological Impact" section; the four coats of arms might be able to fit into a single image box using this template.

Additionally, the names of the "Design, Function and Efficiency" and "Social Effects and Technological Impact" sections are very long and could probably be shortened.

Coverage Balance
The expansion of the article's content has resulted in a number of passages with confusing or redundant verbiage that give the impression of the article being padded out; like the article lead, some of these could probably be slimmed down and still retain their key message. The article draft otherwise does a good job covering its bases.

Content Neutrality
The article draft is written from a neutral point of view and does not appear to have any overall ideological slant.

Conclusion
You have the makings of a solid article here, but you should probably spend some time revising the wording of your passages and looking for more scholarly sources; as it is now, some parts of the article feel unnecessarily padded out. Good luck with your editing!

MightyFiveEleven (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)