User:Gostislav/Boule (ancient Greece)/TherealLiamplsc308 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Gotislav's work on the article Boule (Ancient Greece)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gostislav/Boule (ancient Greece)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Boule (ancient Greece)

Evaluate the drafted changes
First and foremost I really like the changes that you've made to this article! I think the information you've added about Cleisthene's Boule really enhanced my understanding of the article in general.

I'll start with the lead. I really like the lead for the most part. It's brief, to the point, and useful. I like your choice to remove the precise specification that over 500 citizens served on the Boule, as it seems like the rest of the article suggests that the number of members on Boulai varied, and that was a clear source of confusion. I also notice that the first sentence in your draft omits the opener "In the cities of Ancient Greece" that is present in the current version of the article. I think removing that line could make the lead a little confusing to the reader, as it is a little difficult at first to get a sense of the time and place that the article is talking about.

The section on Cleisthene's Boule itself was really very interesting and useful! All of the information you included seemed highly relevant, up to date, and well supported by your citations (although I think the last few sentences of the legitimacy section could use a citation). The opening paragraph about Cleisthene's Boule very effectively set out the basic structure of the Boule in that era, and the context from which it emerged. I do think some of the reforms are a little difficult to follow at times, as there is not a very thorough description of how the Boule was set up before Cleisthene's reforms earlier in the article. However, I don't think this is a huge problem, as the section makes perfect sense if you read it attentively, and those earlier sections might be outside of the scope of your project.

The legitimacy section was also very useful, although I think it could be difficult to a totally unfamiliar reader to make the connection between the selection process you describe there and the concept of legitimacy. Coming from our class, I understand why you organize this section the way you do, but I think it might be helpful to a lay reader if you either talk a little bit more explicitly about legitimacy in the section itself, or to just change the name of the section to something like "selection process".

I really liked the accountability and responsiveness section. It is clear, direct and well written. I think if you want to fill it out a bit more you could bring in some analysis from a secondary source describing how effectively the measures that you described create accountability and responsiveness, but I don't know that that's necessary for the section to serve its purpose well.

In general, the work you've done so far is great! It seems neutral, balanced, well cited, and informative. I think more information explicitly detailing the background of the Boule before Cleisthene's would make it a little easier to follow, if that's within the scope of the project you're planning to take on. Either way, good work!