User:Googoogoo165/Secessio plebis/Tjna57 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? Googoogoo165
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Googoogoo165/Secessio plebis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead section has not been updated; however, the new content added still coincides with the introduction, so it works very well.
 * 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? This particular subject matter is dealing more with a single term/phenomenon; therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to have a description of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise and informative.

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? There is no content that feels out of place. However, I wonder if more information can be given regarding the Fourth Secession (although I know that may not be possible given its obscurity).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article gives attention to notions of class/political tensions (aka Plebeians vs Patricians and the Conflict of the Orders)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there does not appear to be any heavily biased claims and/or positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content merely presents the history.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? A mix of current and old works.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? There is a spelling error in the fourth paragraph of The First Secession (the word Negotiating has a tiny typo). Additionally, the word plebeian is misspelled as plebian.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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, but I think the image in the Fifth Secession section might benefit from a date.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
 * 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?
 * 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? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Provides more contextual background and information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps expanding on the Fourth Secession (if possible)