User:KlicketyKlack/Damocles/SiegalSchwall70 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) KlicketyKlack


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KlicketyKlack/Damocles?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)


 * The Lead Section –
 * You did a very good job finding that citation which was needed and attributing it to the correct author to it. The lead does seem a tad short, maybe it is possible to add a little more information or summation of Damocles. For instance, possibly adding one or two references of Damocles in cultural depictions today might help, something along the lines of "Damocles is still seen as influential today, given the numerous references that attribute to him such as..." That might help give the lead a little more length, as well as provide more info on him in our contemporary era. Just a thought, but overall, the lead is well done.
 * Clarity of Article Structure --
 * I think that the organization and structure of your article is very good. Specifically the addition of a new heading in the body, the "differing interpretations." I think that is a great addition, and the order of which you put the sections makes absolute sense.
 * Coverage Balance --
 * Like I stated in the lead section, the lead could use a little more information/summation, but other than that, each subject header has a balanced amount, and I liked that you added a section too, given that you state in your sandbox that you will add more to the differing interpretations part. I feel as though this article gives both and all sides to Damocles, and that there is no convincing of a viewpoint that is occurring here.
 * Content Neutrality --
 * I believe you did a great job in maintaining neutrality throughout your article. I cannot find a part that shows a bias or viewpoint coming through, rather you emphasize "others argue...while another argues..." while citing who specifically stated these opinions and maintaining your neutrality. Good job Switzerland!
 * Sources --
 * Your sources portray a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives, while also showing their reliability as authentic and legitimate sources. Most of all sources are within the last 5-10 years, showing how viable they are for using them in this article. Additionally, all of the links were working and went directly to the sources, which was very nice to see. Further, no part jumps out at me that their is a source missing from your work, and I really like how you found that missing citation in the intro. Very well done on sourcing.
 * Images --
 * I thought your finding of the images in regards to cultural references to be awesome. Those political cartoons with the reference to the Sword of Damocles were great finds, and the image of the video game Damocles was amazing, and such a cool little known fact. Great work on this front.
 * Overall impressions --
 * Overall, I really enjoyed your additions and work contributing to this article. I think you did a fantastic job in finding more sources, images, and information, while also altering the existing information to make it flow and read more clearly. A little more adding to the lead section would be nice, but other than that I think that this article will turn out great, and you have made it a lot better. Keep up the good work!