User:Garrettjaffe4/Pankration/Hippolotamus Peer Review

General info
Garrettjaffe4
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Garrettjaffe4/Pankration
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Pankration

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

·      Good catch on taking out the weird reference to plants and Criminal Minds. Very strange place for it.

·      The lead seems a little brief. But considering the great detail the rest of the article goes into, maybe it doesn’t need anything added to it.

·      I do think your rewording of the things helps. The original lead seemed very clunky

Content

·      Good work on revisions for the history section. Editing out and cleaning up some of the more wordy sections.

·      I think the techniques section could be edited down some too. It’s very lengthy. In my opinion (which you don’t have to agree with or use) it seems to make the article more about the moves than the sporting event as a whole. May consolidate some of the sections. For example, even in your edits, instead of having sections for low kicks, jump kicks, and straight kicks – maybe just turn it into Kicks and describe the various types in less detail.

·      The Structure section in the original article I think could use some cleaning. Instead of the large block text description of the ritual on how opponents were chosen, try to paraphrase it down with the citation

·      It’s mentioned in the modern section that with the revival of the Olympics the pankration was not reinstated but doesn’t give details why, I think that would be a good addition and if there has been any changes of whether it’s appealing to be allowed back eventually.

Sources

·      Great job finding more sources!

·      It does look like you may have created a few entries for the same source vs just reusing the source --- referring to Nomikos and Bonas.

·      I’d double check with Christine but I think you want to avoid citing from academia.edu (I could be wrong though)

Overall

·      I think your edits were great! You added things that were relevant and removed things that were clunky and unnecessary.

·      The article has a lot of great images.

·      The clarity you add to the sections your revised will definitely be nice.

·      Great work so far!