User:Chartreusetuningkey/Haruspex/Cerberuslovesme 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? (Chartreusetuningkey)
 * User:Chartreusetuningkey/Haruspex

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
May want to update the lead to address the rewritten section. The lead in the original article doesn't have many citations, may consider revising to change old information to new rewritten information with citations.

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 new content added is well worded and contains needed citations with new information. The content contains citations for secondary sources, but primary sources are written about, may want to add citations about primary works.

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 tone of the section is well done. It remains in a neutral tone and does not say more than the evidence used. The author also writes in a tone that does not lead the reader to make assumptions.

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 all work and the author uses mainly secondary sources as citations, but mentions primary sources such as Etrusca disciplina and the priest Laris Pulenas. May want to find primary citations for those. Also might want to see if there is a link for Etrusca disciplina and the priest Laris Pulenas, that may be beneficial to the reader to gain extra context.

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
The content added is concise, but might need more links/citations added. This article is replacing a section of the original work and therefore it would fit well within the replaced section. Content added does not overlap with other sections, although a revising of the lead would be beneficial.

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
Images added are chosen well and will enhance the understanding of the topic. Images are well captioned and are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall the rewritten section was improved as the added content added some citations and links to give the reader better context. All the added content makes sense and is well done. The content could be improved by revising the lead to add the improved content, as well as adding citations for primary works and seeing if there are links that can be added for those as well.