User:DDugan2021/Oeconomicus/Savanna Fillmore 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? (DDugan)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DDugan2021/Oeconomicus
 * Peer Reviewed by Savanna Fillmore

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, you have added new information to the summary part of the page.
 * 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, I didn't knoew what the Oeconomicus was at first but after reading the introducation I have a clear understanding of what it is
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, you have added a direct quote from the text. I would just make sure to add a citation at the end of it so it is clear where you got it from.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and not overly detailed

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does need more information. I think it would be great to add another subcategory besides summary. I know it is hard to do but it would make the page more whole and well rounded.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes!

Content evaluation
Great content. The page definitely needed work.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, very based on the facts of the original texts
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No you made the summary longer and more detailed so it is more equal to the interpretations sections on the original page.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is great and very neutral. Balance could use a little more work to make it more well rounded.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I believe so, you just have to put some more in-text citation to make it clear.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I would look for a couple more sources because you only have two. Maybe add one about the text being referenced more recently.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes it is from 2016
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No just one, and it does look like 1 and 2 are the same source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
You have one great source! I would look for a couple more (I know that can be challenging though)

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
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections you currently have fit perfectly

Organization evaluation
Your sandbox is organized very well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, maybe add some of painting of Xenophon so readers can see the author of the text.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

Images and media evaluation
Maybe add some photos that are relative to make the page more interesting.

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
I think this is a great start to your Wiki project and I look forward to seeing the final project.