User:Revengemin Button/Cassander/Marge584 Peer Review

Hello!

Lead Section

I feel like the lead section introduced many of the topics that will be covered in the article!

Clarity of Article Structure

The structure is perfectly organized. My question would be, can any of these sections be split into smaller sections, instead of it just being "Early history" and "late history?" Otherwise, the content from top to bottom makes sense and is clear.

Coverage Balance

I did not notice any indication that the article tries to sway me one way over another. The references also show that the content is reflected. MY question again would be, is there any sections that could be split into two if there is more information that could be added?

Content Neutrality

The lead section I found is very neutral. I feel like I wasn't tried to be persuade one way or another.

Sources

I see all of the "references" but I don't see anything in the bibliography. Are there any new sources that need to go in there? Also, is there a source/reference for the map?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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