User:Gracemiskovsky/Temple of Apollo Sosianus/Babymel418 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant and provides background information to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The information is not terribly old, but is all from 1974-1980.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content that is missing or does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The information written by my peer does provide new information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is very factual, but does discuss scholarly debate about the position of Apollo.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not necessarily, but the scholarship is sound.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No.
 * 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, it is easy to understand and read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into a main section of the Augustan Reconstruction and a subsection about the Apollan Statue.

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 Apollan Statue.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, provides context and has a footnote.
 * 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, it can be added to the article in the subsection of Art within the Temple.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information is very strong, written well, has good sources and makes sense.
 * How can the content added be improved? Overall, this is very solid work, but needs 2 more sources for the final publication.