User talk:Yautja199/Helots/ZuesChill Peer Review

Review Comments: Adding the section called "Helots at the Battle of Plataea" is a great addition, because Herodotus does mention them. I like that you backed up your information with a source, and you cited it well. I would maybe add another one. I know that is easier said than done, but if you have an example of Herodotus' mention of Helots, it could help reinforce the claim that Helots were present during the battle. In the "revolts" sections, there are some quotes that maybe would make more sense to the reader if they knew who wrote them after the quote. The revolts could use your touch too. You did a good job on adding your section but adding some information to the reader about how those revolts were specifically involved with helots would help us understand Helots. The pictures are good ones but adding more to the captions might help. Also, if there is a picture of a helot, that would help the reader with a good visual.

The Lead Section: The lead from the original article does help me understand what a helot is. Maybe adding something that could show a helot's place in society. I think, since the battle of Plataea is in there, the lead could maybe mention other battles that Helots were involved in, just so Plataea doesn't stick out.

Clarity of Article Structure: The sections are organized well. Again, I think your addition of "Helots at the Battle of Plataea" is an addition that is needed. You mentioned Thermopyle, so maybe a source showing their involvement there too? Maybe even a section for Thermopyle might help? Just some ideas.

Coverage Balance: I don't see any viewpoints missing. If there is literature out there written by a helot, that would be awesome to include, but I really don't think that is a thing. The article doesn't try to sway me into thinking that helots were one thing or another, and it helps me understand that there are sources that call them slaves, and some that call them between a slave and a free man.

Content Neutrality: I don't think there is a position to take on helots, but if there was, the author does not take it. In the lead, the evidence describing a helot is depends on source, but the suthor doesn't sway one way or the other. They just present the evidence.

In the "Helots and klēroi" section there are some comments like "According to some authors.." Maybe throwing in who the author is and the source they wrote in could help prevent that from happening.

I don't think the article poses the subject under a certain light. It seems to just be providing evidence for helots. Which is a great thing.

Sources: Most statements are connected to a reliable source. They rely on a good mix of journal articles, textbooks, and even primary source translations. There is some self-published author stuff, but it is a good mix with a neutral tone.

The last two paragraphs of the Etymology section could probably use a source just to back up some of the information. ZuesChill (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)