User talk:Thegodofchaos/MPdraft

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.

Instructor Feedback
Thank you for your review, Nealthane, it touches on areas that need improvement while also acknowledging the limits to your peer review (as the author indicated that they will be adding more sections & media). Well done, you've given your peer areas to work on.

Thegodofchaos I like the direction you're taking with the content of this article, but there was not a substantial amount for your peer reviewer to work with. Watch sentences like "The Macedonian phalanx was created, like many other things, out of necessity." - what does this mean? Careful with added thoughts such as "like many things", and instead consider changing the sentence to something more direct like "The Macedonian phalanx was created because..." or "The origins of the phalanx arose from a need for..." etc. Going forward, please incorporate all the changes your peer reviewer suggested, particularly with regard to citations and, once you are done with that, your biggest goal will be to simply keep adding (lots more!) content to the page. I'm excited to see where this goes, and what the final product will look like! 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) —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply to feedback
Thank you Nealthane and Gardneca for your helpful comments. I will work on fleshing out my article by adding more content, more citations, and fixing what is already added, especially that with added thoughts. --Thegodofchaos (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, Thegodofchaos, I'm really looking forward to seeing your final product! Gardneca (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)