User:Honkshoo The Bird Man/Sarissa/Michael Cheng2 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Honkshoo The Bird Man

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Honkshoo The Bird Man/Sarissa - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Sarissa - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead is concise and gives a good initial idea of what a Sarissa is, but the phrasing 'arguably about 5 to 7 meters' seems kind of strange. You may be able just to drop arguably and it keeps the same with the Sarissa being around 5 to 7 meters. Also, adding on that the precise length is unknown isn't entirely necessary since you already said its about 5 to 7 meters. Not including these may help the lead seem more concise and flow better.

Content

Your draft is good, you could probably add some more other than just three paragraphs. I would suggest adding onto the sections already in the rough draft, such as adding in what kinds of armor or shields the Sarissa might have engaged or other kinds of topics. Going into more details on the sections to go into deeper detail about the Sarissa and its composition and utility.

You could also try and find other sections of the article that are lacking in more in-depth information, for example, in the historical use section, explaining the usage of the Sarissa in certain battles or conflicts could be another avenue to add more information.

Tone and Balance

The Tone is also pretty neutral and non-biased which is pretty good. The coverage is mostly just informing the reader rather than trying to impart any view points.

Images

Perhaps think about adding in some images of reconstructed Sarissa, possibly with people for better reference as to how big the Sarissa were. There are multiple images on the original article that depict Sarissa in mosaics and imagery, but none for any modern reconstructions, one of which is explained in the fourth paragraph, so adding something like this might be intresting.

Sources and References

There aren't any references or sources cited anywhere on the draft, the original article has multiple you could utilize on your own draft since they cover much of the same information. By going into editing mode on the original article, you can copy and paste the original citations and references over onto your draft that you may want to use. You could add additional sources for any new information you add as well as citations within any new information you add. Additionally, in the third paragraph when it says 'ancient authorities', maybe adding specifically which authorities or citing where that information may specifically come from to help add creditability to it.