User:AgardW40/Terence/Ebullience10 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * AgardW40
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:AgardW40/Terence

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has has been updated to reflect some of the new content, especially bibliographic information. The lead now includes more about the death of Terence. Rather than saying he just died young, as in the original version, it has been updated to reflect the exact age he died (25) and what he was he doing when he died (during travel that was suppose to help him find more plots.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. From the first sentence we learn where he was from, what he is most known for, and when he was alive in a concise and well put together way. These seem like the main ideas that one would want to know right from the start.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does a great job of covering biographical information and information about his plays. Perhaps there could be a line or two added that summarizes the last section about his cultural legacy, but otherwise it summarizes the information very well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * All the information in the main paragraph of the lead is covered in more depth or connected to the rest of the article. The only things that seems slightly unconnected is the quote from one of his plays. What if you moved the quote to the later section on his plays, or is there maybe a way that you can frame it more into the summary?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The strikes a very good balance, offering a concise summary of Terence as a whole, but providing just enough detail here are there that it is not too vague. Most of the detail is relevant to who he was and what he did generally.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content that has been added is all relevant to the topic. Some of things that I noticed that were added were scholarly debates on when he was born, how he came to have his name, what he looked like, the language and style used in his plays, and the legacy of his plays in connection to literary education, especially in the education of Shakespeare.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added all appears up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the content seems to belong. I was curious about the biographic section where there was the singular line in a paragraph that said "Terence was a member of the so-called Scipionic Circle." I know that the term was highlighted so we can click on the link and learn more about that, but when I read it felt a little out of place, or like it could use some more explanation or information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does, on the grounds that the contributions of Africans can be overlooked. Since Terence was a Roman African playwright, this is filling in the equity gap of African's contribution both to Literature and their significant roles in shaping History.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content add is neutral. In many cases, comparing the original article page and the updated sandbox version, it appears like AgardW40, make an effort in rewording certain areas that appeared to be questionable in the original. All of the content that was added by them is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None of the claims appear heavily biased towards any particular position. In many places, the content added suggested other scholar's perspectives, such as the case on the date when Terence was born and the uncertainty that there is surrounding the specific date. Nothing appears to be presented in the best light possible or the worst light possible. I can not tell where the author stands on this when reading the article, which I think is a great sign towards its neutrality in position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think all of the viewpoints are well represented, and are done so in pretty equal measure.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The content added really focused on adding more neutrality and clarity to the article as a whole, while offering some addiotnal information about Terence's life and legacy.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, I would say so. What I noticed as being new content, if not a rewording, had a source/ citation attached to it. The sources listed at the bottom of the page all appear reliable, such as textbooks, or publications put out by Universities.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Some of the sources seem a bit general at first glance, but my guess is that like The Oxford Anthology of Roman Literature, they have sections on Terence, his life and his writing, so the source itself may reflect more range than the title suggests. I also got the sense while reading the article that there might not be a whole lot of literature on the biography, or that there are many points that scholars haven't quite nailed down yet. I think for the general overview of Terence, the sources chosen work well for the purpose and reflect the material out there on the general biography.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current, all of them are published around 2012-2014 time frame, which is within the last eight to six years. I would call that current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I wouldn't say that that they are particularly diverse. Granted, I really didn't do a deep dive but some brief searching looks like most of them are white college professors. Abigail Graham represents the women's perspective, I guess.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do work. The links take you directly to the source material on the internet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well written. In a few places it even revised previous sentences to make them flow more naturally, etc.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The added content does not have any grammatical error or spelling errors that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I am guessing that the content added will fit under the sectioning/ structure that is on the original article page, and that such formatting didn't quite carry over when copied and pasted in the sandbox? (I had a similar problem here too, so I totally get it.) I think the existing structure works well and flows natural from the biography to the works he produced to the legacy of those works. I think all of the new content fits in well and has been added at natural, logical places.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. The image that was added is a portrait of Terence from 1726, and helps the reader picture what he may have have looked like based on the description given of him in the biographical section.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the image is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The image chosen to add is in the public domain, as listed on the Rijks Museum website. https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-BI-6666 (I found this under the "Object Data" section.) The image appears to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, I think it appropriately placed with the biographical information, and it it looks professionally placed off to the right with the text wrapping around the image.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the biggest strengths of the added content are the clarification and flow that they provide to the text as well the new perspectives offering a balanced understanding of the scholarship out there on Terrance's life, works, and legacy.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that the content added is really great. If you have the time or resources, maybe look at reframing a few spots like the quotation in the lead, or the biographical part on the scipionic circle.