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

Content

The content is relevant to the topic and gives precise details about the 'Augustan Reconstruction' along with dates. The content is up to date; however, the sources only range from 1974-1988, and having a more current source might be helpful. The article gives a well-balanced scholarly opinion that isn't repetitive or confusing. It provides explicit content that will be able to fill the gaps in the Wikipedia article and also includes information that might not be accessible to the public.

Tone and Balance

The tone of this text is neutral, and multiple viewpoints from different scholars are given. This gives a collection of unbiased information regarding the 'Apollon Statue.' Numerous opinions are presented by various scholars and were presented with no bias, for example: (been the object of scholarly debate). The viewpoints are equally presented and are all fact-based.

Sources and References

References and citations are placed at the end and in the text. The article uses the sources accurately and brings together information from different dates and scholars. There is a bit of a range; however, the sources are heavily based between 1974-1988, and I think adding some more current or up-to-date sources would help give a modern perspective, if there is one.

Organization, Images and Media

The organization of the text is evident and straightforward and guides the reader through the text. Again, this was done well and presented clarity. And the use of images is a nice add-on to the article, showing the reader what you are writing about.

Overall Impressions

How can content added be improved?

Some minor improvements, such as simple spelling mistakes (an oval shape), can be made. And I think adding a more current and modern source would be a valuable addition to this article.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The article is very clear and organized, making it easy to read. And it also isn't repetitive and gives various opinions. I also like the image in the article, which adds a visual component. I also enjoyed reading about different scholarly sources still debating over certain information.