User talk:Mandafur/Nisaea

Peer Review of User:Mandafur/Nisaea found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mandafur/Nisaea

The lead correctly identifies the topic of the article with a good summarizing sentence. However there is also a little fun fact about the length of the walls in the lead which might be better in a different place in the article. Instead perhaps have a little summary of what else is in the article, as in a bit of the myth, history, religion, poetry, and geography. The section on Foundation Myth is well written and well cited. The History section is also well written and cited, however some further content on history after 343 BCE could add to the article as a whole if such information could be found. The division of History into general and a subsection for the Peloponnesian War is a helpful one as that time in history was clearly eventful. The culture section is completely new content which is absolutely great! The section is well written and cited, although it is fairly small, so adding more content is of course a way to improve it if such content can be found. The Geography section is also well written and cited, but lacking in images to further the readers understanding of the content.

The User completely organized the articles original content into clear and helpful sections and subsections, while also adding lots of content and sources to flesh out the article. All contributions are helpful, neutral in tone, well written and well cited. Sources are up to date with much being from 2018. The article could still use some images and some further information in general (like most articles), but mainly in the lead. Overall the user is making lots of helpful and informative contributions to the article, but there is always room for greater improvement.

--Thegodofchaos (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback
Thank you for your review, Thegodofchaos, you have some good ideas for the expansion of this article, and provide good 'big-picture' feedback for your peer to work on. Great work!

Mandafur I agree with your reviewer about the content of your lead section, and I'd actually leave that until after you've finished adding content (so your lead best reflects what the article contains). One small thing I noticed was that under the Peloponnesian War heading you wrote "In the first years of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE),"; the dates you give are for the war in its entirety, but perhaps you could give the date of the event you're writing about ("Nisaea was defeated in a naval battle against an Athenian fleet")? Your writing style is extremely straightforward and easy to read - excellent work! Going forward, please incorporate all the changes your peer reviewer suggested and, once you are done with that, keep adding content to the page - I know there's not a ton of information out there, but just keep adding as much as you can, and perhaps we will be able to nominate this for a 'Good Article'. Please let me know if you have any questions, and reply to this comment when you have seen it with your plans and goals for improvement over the next month. Don't forget to tag me and sign with 4 tildes (~)! Gardneca (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review Thank you Thegodofchaos and Gardneca for your helpful suggestions! I will be sure to add more content to the lead section which will summarize the content of the entire article. I will also make note to search for any relevant images to the article topic, and any more information on the culture of the port town to add to that section. Along with the suggested changes, I really appreciate the positive feedback on my work thus far, so thank you!

Mandafur (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)MandafurMandafur (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, Mandafur, I'm really looking forward to seeing your final product! Gardneca (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)