User:Caligulaforprez2024/Roman concrete/Forgetfulpumpkin 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? Caligulaforprez2024
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Caligulaforprez2024/Roman concrete

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?

Lead evaluation
The way that his rough draft is set up makes it a bit difficult to tell which information will be going where. However, I feel that the content as well as the images that were added in the sandbox are well written and captioned. After looking at the Wikipedia page as a whole I feel that the lead is clear and provides enough context for the rest of the sections on the page. Describing what is in the concrete in the introductory sentence may be beneficial for the reader. I feel that the leads provides adequate information and summarizes the article nicely.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and I feel that it is up to date. I feel like all the content is relevant, but more could be added to provide more context to the reader. Content that I feel may be missing is why was concrete concrete so important and revolutionary to Rome? How did concrete effect the Roman economy? Did the production of concrete create jobs for the Roman people? This topic is underrepresented as there was not much information on Wikipedia about it.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that is being added is neutral and provides dates and stats on Roman concrete. I do not feel that any information in the article is biased and the user has done a good job keeping a neutral tone. I feel that the content, especially in the sections titled "Material properties" and "Seismic technology" is very scientific based. I am not sure if more history related content should be added or not, because I feel that the information provide is accurate. Maybe the questioned I posed above could help in adding more historical context to the page. Overall, the content seems very neutral and helpful.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links attached do work and they are from reliable sources. I would say that the sources available reflect the topic well. The sources are current.

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?

Organization evaluation
I feel like the origination of the sections makes, as it is in in a somewhat chronological order with history first and modern last. The content added does not have spelling or grammatical errors. Based on the sandbox it is hard to tell which information is going to go where, but it does make sense and it related to roman concrete. The organization of the wiki page makes sense, but the sandbox organization was a bit difficult to comprehend, although the content was clear.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The user added three images. They are well captioned and enhance the overall article. They all adhere to the Wikipedia copyright regulations. The layout of the images makes sense because they do not distract from the article in anyway. The images depicts scenes in ancient roman and provide a visual aid to the content.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article is supported by 3 reliable secondary sources. I feel that it mostly represents all the literature available on the subject. I feel that having a source about the social or economic value of concrete would round out the page. The article does link to the sources so readers can learn more about the topic if they wanted to.

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?

Overall evaluation
I do feel that the overall content has been improved by the user's additions. I think the biggest strength is the images that are added because it shows the landscape of Rome and depicts concrete structures which are discussed on the page. As i have stated before, expanding the history section to include the economic value of concrete, how it impacted citizens, and why it was a revolutionary invention would round out the article and give the readers a better understanding. I can tell the user put in a good amount of effort in their rough draft and I wish them good luck on improving their article from here.