User:Leonidas XIV/Miltiades/JurassicDad35 Peer Review

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Not entirely sure if the section on “Tyrant of the Thracian Chersonese” is supposed to be about Miltiades, his father’s half-brother, or Stesagoras. Maybe focusing more on the person the article is about, and adding the other information under the “Family” section. Or, if it is relevant, make it more clear in stating how it is. I can see how it ties in at the very end.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article appears neutral in bias.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think as stated above, the section on the Thracian Chersonese is underrepresented in terms of Miltiades’ actual involvement in it’s current state.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

While citations are good, it would be great if a link to the Herodotus book (volume, publisher, etc.) included with the citations was included.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

Herodotus can be a tricky source to use but I think in terms of coverage in the Persian War it works well, considering we don’t have access to many (if any) other contemporary options.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

Everything looks decent from what I can tell.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)