User:JumpOffsides/Peisistratos/SiegalSchwall70 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) JumpOffsides


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JumpOffsides/Peisistratos?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Peisistratos

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.)


 * 1) The Lead Section --
 * 2) I really enjoyed your additions to the lead section of your article. Better emphasizing the region in which Peisistratos ruled, and the results under his rule was a great addition that better gives the reader a sense of why he was so influential, so very good job on that. Additionally, the subtraction of the information on his brother-in-law from the lead I though was a good reduction, as it seemed out of place and unnecessary to mention in such an important part of the article. Overall, I thought the intro was done very well, good job!
 * 3) Clarity of Article Structure --
 * 4) Your creations and reordering of the sections and headers I thought was done accurately and in a way that made logical sense. I enjoyed the background information of Peisistratos instead of just jumping straight into how he came to power. The addition of the structure of the Athenian government and the discussion of tyranny before you mentioned Peisistratos I thought was crucial and necessary, and I am glad you added it. There is a possibility that you could split that type of background on Athens into its own section rather than a combination between that and Peisistratos' rise, but it is totally up to you, as both ways make sense. For the second part, I liked the rearranging of information you did, in order that the sequence and timeframes do not get disrupted like they did in the original article, but rather now seem to be in their correct spots. The "Achievement and Contributions" section does however seem to be quite long, I am not sure if there is a way to split that up in a logical sense. One possibility I have for you is to use the "Achievement and Contributions" two intro paragraphs and include the "culture, religion, and arts" sub-header along with that, and then create a new section titled "Policy: Foreign and Domestic" and then include those paragraphs under this new section. That is one possible way to fix the longevity, but you may have more logical suggestions being more familiar with the information. Lastly, I enjoyed both the "popular tyrant" and "legacy and aftermath" sections. In them, I like how you incorporate multiple viewpoints and perspectives, as well as address the opinions and conceptions of his legacy. Overall, wow, great job!
 * 5) Coverage Balance --
 * 6) As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, most of all the sections in your article seemed very balanced, except the "Achievements and Contributions" section, which seemed a little heavier than the others. I made a suggestion above, but regardless, I would think it to be wise considering the balance of the article to somehow split some of that great and very detailed info up. Other than that, I have no problems with your balance, but once again was very impressed.
 * 7) Content Neutrality --
 * 8) I got a sense you took very good care not to come across as biased or favoring a viewpoint; rather, it seems you did a very splendid job in maintaining this sense of neutrality throughout the article, especially under the "popular tyrant" and "legacy and aftermath" sections, which are usually the hardest to achieve this. Good job Switzerland, no complaints here under this section.
 * 9) Sources --
 * 10) Your adding to the article is chockfull of amazing and reliable sources, and it is clear that you incorporate a wide variety of opinions and and perspectives, rather than relying too heavily on a certain point of view. The sheer amount of sources and references you added to your article was also impressive, and I can't find a spot in your article that you fail to properly cite or attribute. This was very highly achieved, well done.
 * 11) Images --
 * 12) The amount of images you added to your article I thought was impressive. None of them seemed out of place or unnecessary, but rather contributed quite well to the overall structure and information learned from this article. The captions for the images seemed well done, and they are laid out in the article in a way that does not distract from the overall piece, but enhance the article instead. Great job on this part!
 * 13) Overall Impressions --
 * 14) Overall, I am very impressed at your contributions to the article. The amount of information you added was amazing, and it shows you put a lot of time and effort into better constructing this article. From the reorganizing/restructuring of the article, to the addition of new sources and information, to the new images, and so much more, everything seemed to be spot on and well done. It is hard to find a spot to critique in your article, besides that one section that seems pretty lengthly and heavy. Otherwise, I want to commend you on a great job doing this. I did notice that throughout the article, there were instances when you used the informal "thru" instead of the formal "through," which is a minor thing but still important nonetheless. Also, the addition of information on modern legacies in society and culture of Peisistratos might be nice to add, although I am not quite certain how much information about this is out there. Just a thought, though definitely not necessary. Anyhow, props to you, and awesome job, really well done!