User:Superdeadpatroclus/Ephor/PericlesIsMyWaifu Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Superdeadpatroclus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

I think the lead as it is does a good job introducing what the ephors are. That said, I think adding some more information will improve it. For this section, I'd recommend bringing in a bit more information from the main article, for instance when they were dissolved and a few of their powers/responsibilities. I'd also suggest maybe tying it together a bit so the information flows together a bit more smoothly.

Article structure:

Overall, I think the article is pretty well structured. The one suggestion I'd make is to rename the "Contemporary uses" section to "In modern culture" or something to that effect.

Coverage balance:

At least as far as I can tell, each section seems to be proportionately long relative to its importance. That said, maybe the "History of the office" section could be expanded on, if possible. I know all too well that information on these topics can be scarce, so I'd understand if that isn't feasible. I also think some of the figures in the "Notable ephors" could be elaborated on to some degree. Beyond that, each section seems to pull from a variety of sources, and at least as far as I can tell, doesn't seem to particularly favor one or the other. I also don't see any obvious conclusions being drawn by you or any of the article's other contributors so far.

Content neutrality:

For the most part, the article seems really good in terms of maintaining a neutral position. The only bit that gives me pause is the sentence, "Although Sparta fell under Roman rule in 146 BC, the position existed into the 2nd century AD, when it was likely abolished by Roman Emperor Hadrian and superseded by imperial governance as part of the province of Achaea" at the end of the "History of the office" section. Namely, the "it was likely" bit. I'm not sure if that's going by what the source says or if it's from the user's perspective. Either way, it's worth looking into.

Sources:

As noted previously, there's a pretty wide range of sources referenced here, which is good. The one source that gives me pause is #15 on the reference list, which links to a website that seems to be advocating some alternative form of voting. Even if the information used might be good, the site itself has a clear agenda and probably isn't the most reliable. Consider finding an alternate source.