User:Superdeadpatroclus/Ephor/PericlesIsMyWaifu Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Superdeadpatroclus

Link to draft you're reviewing: [1]
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Ephor

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead:

I think the lead as it is does a good job introducing what the ephors are. That said, I think adding some more information will improve it. For this section, I'd recommend bringing in a bit more information from the main article, for instance when they were dissolved and a few of their powers/responsibilities. I'd also suggest maybe tying it together a bit so the information flows together a bit more smoothly.

Article structure:

Overall, I think the article is pretty well structured. The one suggestion I'd make is to rename the "Contemporary uses" section to "In modern culture" or something to that effect.

Coverage balance:

At least as far as I can tell, each section seems to be proportionately long relative to its importance. That said, maybe the "History of the office" section could be expanded on, if possible. I know all too well that information on these topics can be scarce, so I'd understand if that isn't feasible. I also think some of the figures in the "Notable ephors" could be elaborated on to some degree. Beyond that, each section seems to pull from a variety of sources, and at least as far as I can tell, doesn't seem to particularly favor one or the other. I also don't see any obvious conclusions being drawn by you or any of the article's other contributors so far.

Content neutrality:

For the most part, the article seems really good in terms of maintaining a neutral position. The only bit that gives me pause is the sentence, "Although Sparta fell under Roman rule in 146 BC, the position existed into the 2nd century AD, when it was likely abolished by Roman Emperor Hadrian and superseded by imperial governance as part of the province of Achaea" at the end of the "History of the office" section. Namely, the "it was likely" bit. I'm not sure if that's going by what the source says or if it's from the user's perspective. Either way, it's worth looking into.

Sources:

As noted previously, there's a pretty wide range of sources referenced here, which is good. The one source that gives me pause is #15 on the reference list, which links to a website that seems to be advocating some alternative form of voting. Even if the information used might be good, the site itself has a clear agenda and probably isn't the most reliable. Consider finding an alternate source.