User:Babymel418/Library of Celsus/Danielhur01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Babymel418


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/17e3GxN-u_6T4zvcDF2Gm0___0-zIM-4C/edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant and provides more background information to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No scholarly sources and citations are included, so not sure if this content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content that is missing or 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? The information written by my peer does provide new information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is geared towards supporting a theory about the topic and a figure who is related to the topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It might be slightly biased as the information given is supporting a theory about the topic and its origins.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes, the content added does try to attempt to persuade the reader that Celsus may have not been the first Greek to become a Roman senator. This is important in terms of who the Library was made for, but it doesn't really give that much more information about the Library itself.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No sources are used or cited and listed.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) No sources are used or cited and listed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Are the sources current? No sources are used or cited and listed.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No sources are used or cited and listed.
 * 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.) No sources are used or cited and listed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No sources are used or cited and listed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is easy to understand and read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors..
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is not broken down to sections since there is only one paragraph/section of information that is relevant.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images are provided. You should provide some images when you add your information to the sandbox!
 * Are images well-captioned? No images are provided.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images are provided.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images are provided.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it can be added to the article in terms of historical background and Celsus, but you should try to find some information about the Library itself that can be added to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information does provide facts about the article and is easy to understand, but you should have provided which sources you used to cite this information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Overall, this is a interesting theory that you researched, but there are no sources and images provided. You should research some more and try to find more sources so maybe you can add another section to the article as well.