User:LieutenantKennedy17/Philip II of Macedon/KlicketyKlack Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LieutenantKennedy17


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:LieutenantKennedy17/Philip II of Macedon


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Philip II of Macedon

1. Lead

 * The lead seems solid, I think it does a good job of hitting all the main events in Philip II's life without getting bogged down in detail. This is a nitpicky comment, and I'm not sure if you were already planning on changing this or not but the header at the beginning of the article, with the picture of the bust of Philip II, has all the dates still as BC, and since you're changing them to BCE you're gonna want to make sure you go in and add an 'E' to all of those dates in the header too!

2. Clarity of article structure

 * Article organization is good, good call with moving the marriage section above the Assassination section, I think it makes more sense and it flows a lot better.

3. Coverage balance

 * I think your overall coverage is good in each section, I was thinking it might be beneficial to add a bit of detail within the article on the Illyrians (first mentioned in the "Youth and accession" sub-section of the biography). I know you have the hyperlink to the Illyrians article in there already, but especially since they come up later in the "Early military career" I think it could help provide the reader with a little more clarity on who they are, even if it's just a short little throwaway line about where they're from.
 * When it comes to providing a variety of viewpoints I think this article does that very well. Especially since there is uncertainty surrounding his assassination, I think it's definitely necessary to provide as much information on the differing viewpoints as possible, and you do a good job of that.
 * Though I recognize this might just be impossible because there isn't information on the subject, maybe in Justin's analysis you could include some information/detail in that section. It mentions that Olympias returned from exile to place a crown on the assassin's corpse, but why was she exiled? Why would she have been grateful to Pausanias, was she wronged by Philip II? Perhaps that information could even be included in the marriage section under her bullet point.

4. Content neutrality

 * You stay consistently neutral within the article, making sure to attribute any specific views to the specific people or groups that have them, and all your language is neutral!

5. Sources

 * You have so many varied sources! Wow! You did a good job providing sources for each new piece you added, and even fleshed out some areas, like in Cleitarchus' analysis and the Modern analysis, where citations were needed, so awesome job there. I thought it especially good that many of your sources are pretty recent, mostly from the last 20 years or so, though you do have the occasional source from like the 1800s, but those make sense within the context of the article, so all in all it's a very well done reference list!

6. Overall impressions

 * You did an awesome job with this! Honestly just from looking at your sources I can tell you put a lot of effort into researching Philip II and it shows in your additions to his article! The sections you worked on are clear, comprehensive, and flow really well! Reading through the original article and your sandbox draft side-by-side, I really enjoyed seeing the changes you made and the additions you had, especially when you rewrote some lines from the original to make them sound and read a little bit better. Altogether it was a very enjoyable read, nice work!