User:Classicaldisappointmentuno/Bacchanalia/B Betts0312 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? (Classicaldisapointmentuno)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Classicaldisappointmentuno/SandboxDraft

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The "Modern usage" page
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. The content added is from relatively recent sources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article says the cult did many things in privacy so there is much we don't know about the topic so it makes it difficult to know what's missing and if it's even available to include. but there does not seem to be any content that doesn't belong

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? For the different sections I don't think any are underrepresented except for the modern usage. however that seems difficult to tackle since there may not be much modern usage. For over representation I don't think it is. the article states there isn't much known about the cult in general so any information on the topic should be included.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I didn't feel like it persuade me in any way. but if I had to be picky I would say maybe the impression the senate was fearful and felt threatened by such mystery cults

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there are a couple parts added where I'm not sure where the info came from but there is also other information that is backed up by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. the sources and information do make sense and reflect on the article properly.
 * Are the sources current? well, considering the topic is very old and the sources I noticed are from 1996 I would say they are pretty current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are some links that work, but for the one that was added for this purpose provides a Jstor link but you can't click on it. although I'm sure if I were to look for it, I could find it using the information provided.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the subjects/topics about the main issue are broken down into different headings where they are covered more in depth.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the content added makes the article more understandable and more clear. The information that was provided helps to strengthen the article by adding more detail and information. which helps improve the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths to the information added is the reliability of the sources. I found some of the information comes from Livy who we discussed a bunch in class and it adds important info to the topic which was never there before.
 * How can the content added be improved? maybe find similar content to further support its quality.

Overall evaluation
I found the information added helped improve the article. also the info provided is from reliable sources. if I had to critique this in some way I would suggest obviously finding more information to provide about the topic and cite it properly. if there is any chance of adding a new category on the topic that has not been mentioned would also help to improve the article. overall I found the content added was useful and reliable.