User talk:FishMan312/Lycurgus of Sparta/ZuesChill Peer Review

Overall Comments: The additions you want to make are going to add to the total understanding of who Lycurgus is. You could possibly add a source or two to the first two paragraphs of your "Return to Sparta" portion, just so that the reader can see the foundation to the claim. Also in the "Beliefs" category, you could add a source to support the idea that Lycurgus gave Spartan women the idea that they should exercise to produce strong Spartan men. Maybe even use the source quotation here. Just an idea... In the "Beliefs section, you linked pankration, which was an awesome idea because it helped me follow the link to find out what it was. In the currency section, you have noted that you are going to organize it, I think that is a good idea because in the previous two additions, you were organized. The two picture additions are good ones too because they give a good picture in the readers head of what Lycurgus probably looked like.

The lead section: I feel satisfied with my knowledge on the subject after reading the lead. The lead does a good job addressing the important parts of who Lycurgus was, and if he was. I don't think anything is missing except at the end it says the Great Rhetra "transformed Greek society", but maybe if we explain how, we could get a better picture of his impact on Sparta. I think the lead is good though.

Clarity of Article: In the institutions portion, maybe the combination of some of the subheadings into a civil side and a warfare side might help keep it organized. If not, you could relabel the institutions part "Lycurgus' reformed institutions." Besides that, the article structure is good.

Coverage balance: You could add more content to the warfare portion. Sparta was proud of their fighting ability, and Lycurgus had to have contributed to that if he was influential in Sparta. Maybe adding a source for some evidence would help beef up the warfare portion. I think the coverage does reflect some of the viewpoints. Not sure if there is some evidence of people interacting with Lycurgus, but adding those encounters could help.

Content Neutrality: The article doesn't try to persuade me of a specific idea or view. I don't think I could guess the position of the author. In the "early life" section, you could take out "which is more of an anecdotal collection than a real biography" only because you want to stay neutral to the sources being used. The article seems to be pretty neutral to me. The author doesn't seem to be making any strong claims about the information that aren't supported with evidence and giving us a clear view of who Lycurgus was.

Sources: The sources used are a good mixture of primary and secondary. The author uses Plutarch, Thucydides, and Herodotus which are all great sources of information. I did a spot check of three sources to find if I could find the information in the source, if I had the source available. They all were in the source. I think the author did an excellent job with source data, because it is presented easily to read, and they use a blend of different types of sources.ZuesChill (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)