User:Thegodofchaos/Macedonian phalanx/Nealthane Peer Review

Peer review

 * Whose work are you reviewing: thegodofchaos
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Thegodofchaos/MPdraft

Under the heading "development" I can affirm that the user (thegodofchaos) creates an interesting topic sentence on what is about to be discussed without appearing too biased.The content added by the user (thegodofchaos) is relevant to the topic sentence as it not only further develops the already existing content, but by extension, it even adds in a more detailed analysis. The content appears to be up-to-date, without anything missing (as far as I can tell). The content takes a strong neutral tone, without any indication of bias or favoritism over what is being explained and no particular position is more weighted over others. In that sense no view is under or overrepresented, it is simply informative, not persuasive.

The user (thegodofchaos) does fall short when it comes to citing sources, of which most of the information given is not properly cited and that becomes problematic especially in regards to plagiarism. References are there but I feel as though they are few and in-between and that if the user were to cite their sources properly there would be a more apparent basis for the research exploration. In other words, it feels as though they have more sources then is presented since the information under "development" lacks any citations. It is important to remember any information, regardless of whether it Is reworded under your own type of "voice" is to be cited as that constitutes plagiarism.

The added content is well-written (it is clear and easy to read) but it suffers initially from awkward uses of the period for some reason. No indication is given as to whether content is missing or the user has not added in content yet, it is really confusing. Despite this, I have found no spelling errors within the added content nor any issues with organization with regard to placement and flow of wording. Furthermore, the user indicates adding in images and media, so there is very little that I can address here.

Overall, I would say the additional content has definitely improved the quality of the article but lacks completion. In terms of strengths, the user uses a neutral tone throughout and does not lack detail in what is being elaborated on. However, the article itself still needs editing and corrections within those newly developed areas, especially with regards to in-text citations and sentence structuring.