User:GenevieveHis313/Great Fire of Rome/Anctrome3132020 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) GenevieveHis313
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:GenevieveHis313/Great Fire of Rome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No the lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer, but the Lead is fairly detailed already.
 * 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? The Lead provides some descriptions of some of the sections, but not fully.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It includes a historiographical contention that is not expanded on later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead read pretty concise to me.

Lead evaluation
I'm not sure if you're going to update the Lead section with your additions to the Great Fire of Rome. I definitely think you could add a sentence or two with the great new sections that you have added, but no worries if not because it is already a introduction to the article!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! The author added a range of good relevant information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most of the author's additions come from sources produced within the past decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not as far as I can tell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
I thought that you added great content to the Great Fire page! I really enjoyed the added youtube videos that looks specifically into the science of fire to understand what happened in the past. Could you add even more content from the sources that you have already found, or maybe find some additional sources? The youtube videos, of course, are great, and is there content that you could add from historians that is rooted in historical practice?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the author did well to add information without injecting bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, they are neutral in tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The author relies on a few sources to make most of their additions, but I think that it all adds important information even if there is not a ton of sourcing variation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it tries to educate the reader without persuasion.

Tone and balance evaluation
I thought you did a good job are relaying the information that you gleaned from the other sources to the wikipage without inserting bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the new content has good secondary sources cited to back up the content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They reflect a broadly available literature on the topic, but could you look up the topic in the WWU library database too to see if there are some scholarly articles written on the topic? I think the youtube videos are interesting since they allow the reader to see the videos themselves, so I'm also curious about what historians have to say about the topic outside of the two books that you cited. It's super interesting!
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the author uses current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are from a range of people, but I would not say that they include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most of the links work well, especially the youtube links. Could you link the books in a way that sends the reader right to the book's website on the publisher's webpage?

Sources and references evaluation
You do a good job at finding a diversity of sources in terms of where they come from and whether they are text or video, which makes it more interactive! Could you look into the WWU library database to find some historical and scholarly articles on the Great Fire as well? I love using Discovery Channel and other sources to learn, it always makes me curious if the historians in the field agree with their takes or if they are doing pop-science to try to make meaning of the ancient past. The book that you source seems like a good source, too. Could you possibly make the hyperlink go to the publisher's page of the book? One of the links did not work for me and the other one sent me to a google page for the book. I think using scholars even more as sourcing would make your additions even stronger.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes! Very much so. I appreciated the author's simple and clear language to describe their research.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could find!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I liked how the author was able to add to existing sections and create new ones where they saw fit to build on what was already online. I would say the additions of the Previous Fires, Vigiles, and Rome Water System.

Organization evaluation
I thought your writing was very clear and understandable. You organized the content that you added very well and I think that it will merge into the article well when the time comes.

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Without a doubt! I thought that the author did a wonderful job adding additional content to the article and helping the reader have a deeper historical understanding of the Great Fire.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think some of the strength is how the author provided useful context to the Great Fire so that people who are relatively new to ancient Roman history had a better idea of the background in which the fires occurred. Similarly, using the youtube sources are great for linking readers to interactive sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? I wonder if you could find some more scholarly articles on the topic that would add even more content to the work you have done so far? I think you have done a wonderful job so far and finding new sources would make your work even stronger!

Overall evaluation
Overall I thought that you are doing a great job and adding crucial information to this article! It will make readers understand the Great Fire of Rome better. The context that you have added helps the reader better understand the place and time in which the Great Fire occurred and in which the debates over its meaning happened. The video sources are great to draw readers to the sources and thinking about how we know what we know. Could you add more articles that add to what we know about the Great Fire or complicate our understandings? You're doing awesome and I can't wait to see what you eventually add to the page!