User:Forgetfulpumpkin/Ius Italicum/GrapeJelly84 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? (provide username) Forgetfulpumpkin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Forgetfulpumpkin/Ius Italicum

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. My peer has reorganized the lead paragraph and added new insightful information. As well as separating the article into sections.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence mentions that the Ius Italicum was a law enacted by emperors that only affected certain cities. But only after reading further do we clearly see understand the purpose of the law.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, for the most part the whole article is briefly summarized or hinted at.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? My peer does a well job adding additional information that further explains the law in greater detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe my peer succeeds in stating just the right amount of information without sounding repetitive in the following sections.

Lead evaluation
I appreciate that you rewrote some of the sentences on the article, it flows much better. I also liked that you added the information regarding how the Ius Italicum changed the precedent where land owned by the state could not be owned by citizens. As well with the addition that the Ius Italicum was the highest liberty that could be obtained. Great job with the lead!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. My peer's edit strictly serve to further the understanding of the Ius Italicum.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? One source is dated from 1983 and the other was accessed this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content added by my peer is necessary to further grasp the implementation and purpose of the Ius Italicum.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article addresses ancient roman laws.

Content evaluation
I appreciate that you separated the original content of the wiki article into different headings. It helped to organize the information better and quickly locate a sentence. Your addition of information regarding the act proving too costly to the empire was incredibly insightful.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added by my peer succeeds in remaining neutral and devoid of any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the sections added by my peer remain neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? For the most part, my peer's edits and viewpoints are not overrepresented nor underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I could not identify any bias from my peer's edits.

Tone and balance evaluation
Great job in retaining neutrality when you added your edits. I failed to spot any bias from your added information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Both sources are from reliable academic backgrounds.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am not familiar with the available resources on the Ius Italicum, but I know that one of these sources involves the collaboration of different issues through out the year.
 * Are the sources current? One source is dated to 1983 while the other one is dated to 2015. I believe they are relatively pretty current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Again, I'm not familiar with the diversity of authors who have written about this law. But I think my peer does an adequate job selecting the authors/sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I was unable to locate any links that would take me to the sources listed on the bottom of the page. One of the references was mentioned in the original wiki article and that's the one I looked at. I found the other source mentioned on this article by looking it up in google.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources you listed are professional ones but I would appreciate adding links to them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The organization is further elevated by the titles and sections added by my peer.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I was unsuccessful in spotting any grammatical or spelling issues.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Absolutely! As mentioned before, my peer had added sections and titles where none had existed beforehand.

Organization evaluation
Amazing organizing skills. Looking at your sandbox and the original Wikipedia article, I immediately noticed that the original article lacked any titles, making it difficult to read. Thanks for adding those in.

Images and Media (N/A)
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
(N/A)

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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
(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 added content did indeed improve the article quality. It filled in missing gaps of information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Highlighting Augustus' role in enacting the law, stating the law proved too costly for the empire, further elaborating on how the law changed the previous precedent, adding sections/titles to name a few, nearly everything added by my peer significantly strengthen the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would recommend including footnotes to the information you write to know what source you refer to exactly. I'm also wondering if you could elaborate on how the people reacted to this law's enactment. I know you mention that its enactment was considered very favorably, but I would like additional details if sources can provide it.

Overall evaluation
Overall you were quite successful in adding information that improved the wiki article and reorganizing it as a whole. I'm eager to learn more about the Ius Italicum and look forward to seeing your future edits.