User:Honkshoo The Bird Man/Sarissa/Michael Cheng2 Peer Review

General info
Honkshoo The Bird Man
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Honkshoo The Bird Man/Sarissa - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Sarissa - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead is concise and gives a good initial idea of what a Sarissa is, but the phrasing 'arguably about 5 to 7 meters' seems kind of strange. You may be able just to drop arguably and it keeps the same with the Sarissa being around 5 to 7 meters. Also, adding on that the precise length is unknown isn't entirely necessary since you already said its about 5 to 7 meters. Not including these may help the lead seem more concise and flow better.

Content
Your draft is good, you could probably add some more other than just three paragraphs. I would suggest adding onto the sections already in the rough draft, such as adding in what kinds of armor or shields the Sarissa might have engaged or other kinds of topics. Going into more details on the sections to go into deeper detail about the Sarissa and its composition and utility.

You could also try and find other sections of the article that are lacking in more in-depth information, for example, in the historical use section, explaining the usage of the Sarissa in certain battles or conflicts could be another avenue to add more information.

Tone and Balance
The Tone is also pretty neutral and non-biased which is pretty good. The coverage is mostly just informing the reader rather than trying to impart any view points.

Images
Perhaps think about adding in some images of reconstructed Sarissa, possibly with people for better reference as to how big the Sarissa were. There are multiple images on the original article that depict Sarissa in mosaics and imagery, but none for any modern reconstructions, one of which is explained in the fourth paragraph, so adding something like this might be intresting.

Sources and References
There aren't any references or sources cited anywhere on the draft, the original article has multiple you could utilize on your own draft since they cover much of the same information. By going into editing mode on the original article, you can copy and paste the original citations and references over onto your draft that you may want to use. You could add additional sources for any new information you add as well as citations within any new information you add. Additionally, in the third paragraph when it says 'ancient authorities', maybe adding specifically which authorities or citing where that information may specifically come from to help add creditability to it.