User:DerekJLoewen/Britannia Superior/Kmhuwinnipeg Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

DerekJLoewen


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:DerekJLoewen/Britannia Superior


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Britannia Superior

Evaluate the drafted changes
It looks like you have a good idea of what topics your article could use expanding on and how you are going to develop them into something more thorough.

I see that the lead section is mostly all you had in place before beginning your additions; maybe you could add and edit it to reflect some of the new material you are planning for the body of the article (i.e., your pending additions relating to the formation/early history of the province). You might consider moving some of the details in the lead section to the body of the article and combining those parts with your new material; giving the article shorter and more concise lead and more fleshed out subsections. The lead's introductory sentence in particular might also be rewritten to better reflect the broadening of topics you will be introducing to the article.

I think you are going in the right direction by adding material about the province's inception. I noticed that you only have three new sources; if you are looking for more you might get something useful from a few of the sources I used for my draft of the Britannia Inferior article, since much of the content (especially on the formation of the provinces) applies to both articles.

I also see that you are looking into adding more depth to the article on topics beyond the province's creation (i.e., on Londinium, the wall). This seems like an especially good direction to be going, since the existing article is heavily focused on the earliest part of the province's history. If you are able to find more information about the history of the province past the early years I think that would help to create a much more complete article.

As far as balance and neutrality are concerned I think you are on the right track, aside from perhaps just needing more content in general.

While I think the existing article and your draft are a bit light on some aspects that the Wiki training has been emphasizing (such as representing marginalized voices) I have also encountered a tough time developing content to address that in my own article, as the source material is rather thin. It might be something to keep in in mind in case there's somewhere to bring this sort of aspect into your draft, although from my own experience I can sympathize with this being a bit tough to do in practice regarding this particular topic.

Overall I think you are moving in the right direction towards building a better article. Good luck with the rest of your project!