User:Revengemin Button/Cassander/Johnwikster Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Revengemin Button


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Revengemin Button/Cassander
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cassander

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section

I love the sentences modified in the lead section because they provide critical information for the rest of the article. The rewording of the lead section displays critical attention to content neutrality by the editor especially in the sentence that states “Cassander focused on strengthening the northern borders and economic development, while founding or restoring several cities...” The changes made in this sentence, like others in this section provide a more nuanced version of Cassander’s influence and objectives in the Macedonian kingdom. The only question that came to mind when reading the lead section deals with the last sentence which states, “however, his ruthlessness in dealing with political enemies complicates assessments of his rule.” As a reader, I wondered what entities made up his “political enemies.” That being said, later sections of the page address this question in great detail so there may not be any modifications needed just for the sake of being concise in the leading section. Overall, well done!

Clarity of Article Structure

There is not a whole lot of changes in terms of page structure but I think that considering the way the page is currently set up, it does not necessarily require any reorganization. The layout is very chronological going from “Early History” to “Later History” and then into “Legacy” which I think suits the format of the page well. I’m not positive if there is an intent to change these titles but if not, the only suggestion I have would be to possibly transfer some of the information in the start of the “Later History” section into the “Early History” section, specifically the first few sentences. The first sentence of the “Later History” section continues with a discussion of Antipater and his decision to transfer power which aligns with the discussion of what is happening at the end of the “Early History” section. I wonder if putting these couple of sentences into the “Early History” section would prove beneficial, and then possibly continue the discussion of Cassander rejection his fathers decision by providing a signpost. The flow of the information just seems a little convoluted because of the labels of “Early” and “Later” history since there is only a four year gap between the information that is being provided in these two sections. Instead of rearranging the sentences into the separate sections, I might just suggest changing the titles all together in order to better represent the information being presented. A suggestion I have on how to do this would be to maybe change the “Later History” section to something like “Rise to Power and Later Life.”

Coverage Balance

Altogether, I think the additions made in the “Later History” section and the rewording done to make the reading flow better. I like the attention to detail in this section as well especially when stating, “Cassander campaigned to the west and north, for a time extending Macedonian power as far as Apollonia and Epidamus, but was driven out by local rulers like Glaucius…” This, much like most of the additions to the page, provides clear and concise information with attention to specific directions and places of conquest, while also providing necessary definitions. Also, the additions to the “Legacy” section provides much more relevant information than what is present in the current state of the page. Specifically, reaffirming that “Cassander was responsible for the deaths of more Argeads than other Diadochi…” reaffirms critical information that is relevant to his legacy and authority. The balance of these additions is also supported by varying sources that support varying viewpoints. The only addition I would make would be to possibly link Olympias’ name in the “Later History” section so that the reader can quickly learn about her significance and who she was.

Content Neutrality

Editor does a great job at staying neutral in their additions especially in the legacy section. The sentence that reads, “Evan Pitt argues that Cassander's actions until 311 BC were motivated….” does a great job at attributing an argument to an author, rather than just making a claim as if most people would agree. Additionally, I think that the image added serves the page greatly by giving more geographic context to Cassander’s efforts of building city states. It is an image that simply provides information, rather than in support of an argument, so I think it serves the page very well.

Sources

The source section is really where the edits to this page shine! In the original article there are a lot of repeatedly used sources that provide a sort of unbalanced view of the information. The attention to gathering multiple reliable sources that support the information provided is done really well. I specifically like how Evan Pitt’s "An Ill-defined Rule: Cassander's Consolidation of Power” is used as a relevant source published in the past few years to convey scholarly arguments about Cassander and his intellectual resolve as it is associated with his relationship to Alexander The Great. Very thorough and well constructed!