User:GrapeJelly84/Lex Oppia/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) GrapeJelly84
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:GrapeJelly84/Lex Oppia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead already covered Lex Oppia pretty well, and my peer added important context about Livy's contribution to our understanding. Since my peer is adding a primary source from Livy and secondary sources that come from analyzing Livy, the lead has definitely been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Somewhat. The opening sentence describes Lex Oppia as a law in ancient Rome, but it is not until the second paragraph of the lead that we are told what the law's purpose and intention was. What if the information about Livy came after the introductory section on what the law was supposed to do? Or maybe even a subsection somewhere on the sourcing for Lex Oppia?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, but does not put it out there in an explicit way. I like this since it briefs you without repeating later on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the Lead provides a broad outline of the article without including unique information that is not found elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?It is concise for the most part. I think that the information about Livy and sourcing could potentially come in a subsection or after the description of the law, but overall it is mostly concise!

Lead evaluation
I thought that your addition to the Lead was great! It's cool to know upfront about how the information was found and sourced. I think that also makes the reader think more about how we know what we know. Could you add the sourcing information about Livy after the information about Lex Oppia? I think that would make this section really strong since the reader would get a good dense bit of information about the law and then learn about how we know what we know about the past.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is definitely relevant to the topic. The author adds some great information about sourcing, about Cato and Lucius Valerius, and reaction to the law from women.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the primary sourcing from Livy is good and the author uses two secondary sources published within the last decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It all belongs! I'm not sure where you are looking to expand the article, but I would be curious if there are more sources about what women did in response to the repressive law. Similarly, I'm curious if there are representations of the law in popular culture at all. It's such an interesting topic!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It address women in ancient Rome.

Content evaluation
I really liked what you added to the article. I did not know much about this topic at all, so it was neat to be able to learn a bunch. I'm sure you will continue to add more as you go along, but I'm super interested in what you're finding out about how women reacted and opposed this goofy law. And also how we know about their reactions to this repressive law. I'm sure you'll be able to find some great sources, and it looks like you have already found a few useful ones.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the author adds the information in a neutral manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? When I read it, it seemed like the author did a great job at communicating the information from the sources in a non-biased, neutral manner.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As with all ancient history, there is a definite information bias related to where we glean our information. I'm not sure if there is a way to overcome this underrepresentation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. I thought that content added helped to deepen the breadth of the Wiki page and strengthen the sourcing of the page.

Tone and balance evaluation
I don't have much to add about your tone and balance. I think you do an excellent job at conveying the information that you're learning without writing it in a biased way at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. The author added two secondary sources and Livy (both primary and secondary).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I thought so. There is surely a ton of literature on the topic, so the author did well to bring in contemporary research.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I don't know the identities of the authors, but they're all scholars (and Livy), so probably not.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are two sets of identical references, and one set is hyperlinked and those work.

Sources and references evaluation
All of your content was linked and backed up very well. I liked the mixture of the use of Livy and secondary sources using different forms of evidence to tell us about Lex Oppia.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the author writes in a clear manner that is effective for this purpose.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I recognized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. There is the origin and background and then the repeal of the law. It's simple and intuitive for a reader.

Organization evaluation
Since you're adding to an already existing article, I thought you did a good job at finding some gaps and adding where you saw fit.

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? I would say so, definitely! I appreciated the additions and thought they were well researched. By adding the sourcing of Livy, the reader gets a clearer idea of how this information was originally documented.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The quoted section was really important, I thought, to show the reader what was being written and the format of writing. Similarly, the author's additions give us more detail into the thoughts and actions of Cato, Lucius Valerius, and women who opposed the law.
 * How can the content added be improved? Keep it up and keep adding additional information where you find it! I would love to read more Roman women and their reactions and actions to the law.

Overall evaluation
Overall I really enjoyed reading your additions to this wikipage. You have clearly sought out good secondary sources to learn about the topic and fill in gaps on the wikipage that already exists. I also appreciate how you educate the reader on sourcing and making them think about how we know what we know about the ancient past. I've said it already a couple of times, but I found it fascinating to read about ancient Roman history (especially this law!) from the perspective of women in ancient Rome. Could you find and add more information from that vantage if possible? You're doing a great job and I'm excited to see what you're able to do! Thanks for sharing with me.