User:Googoogoo165/Secessio plebis/XAgememnonX 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?
 * Yes
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and adds much needed detail to the original article.

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?
 * No, the additions to this article fill in the gaps within the edited sections.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It seems that many of the information comes from Livy. Technically, this could be considered a secondary but for the purposes of modern history I do not think we should consider Livy to be a secondary source. Although Livy was not contemporary to the events described in the article, Livy's writings are likely more telling about his own time and ideals rather than the actual events themselves. It would be better if there were more modern sources used that analyze the information presented by Livy and cross reference that information across a variety of primary sources.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, Livy should not be considered a secondary source as stated above.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, nearly all of the citations cite Livy and there is not much scholarship on the topic that is cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, unfortunately Livy lived long ago and is out dated as far as scholarship is concerned.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. See above.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links work fine to other wiki pages.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added to the article provides a much deeper understanding of the topic at hand.
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the addition of the map is great. Having a visual representation of the layout of a historical event(s) is helpful to readers as they attempt to understand the places and movement that is mentioned in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They could use descriptions of the image on top of the citation for added accessibility.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the additional information provided makes the article more complete by providing further detail on the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength of these additions is their detail.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * In opposition to this contents strength, there is little variety in sources. By providing more secondary sources, this would strengthen the information that is presented within your additions.

Overall evaluation

 * Would you be able to add notes on any further edits to help follow your work more easily?
 * As has already been stated, you should consider more secondary source material. I'm just not sure Livy makes the cut. However, the information you have added does a great job at adding detail to lacking portions of the article. It would also be helpful if you could find at least a little bit more about the fourth secession but I imagine you have not pursued it due to a lack of information.