User:Hannahhelm/Patrician (ancient Rome)/JamarcusW 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)
 * Hannah Helm
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Hannahhelm/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead was not updated, I do not think it is neccessary for it to be.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does, especially since she added conflict or orders which was discussed in the lead, but was not mention anywhere else in the original article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * As mentioned above the original article lead discussed conflict of order which was not present elsewhere in the article, but has since been updated to include a conflict of order section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yesy the content added is relevant. I do like the "modern day" section added. It may not be relevant as the article has "Ancient Rome" in the title
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I know the topic is up to date. I do notice some of the sources are from the early 1900s which should not be a problem since history has not changed, although new discoveries could have been established since those were written
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As stated above, the modern day section may not be neccessary for this topic. Although I think it is a great addition.

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?
 * I think conflict of orders was underepresented, although if someone was seeking more knowledge on the topic they could definitetly check out the conflict of orders wikipedia page
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not persuade the reader in favor of any positions

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the sources come from recognized published books and journals
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not all sources are current as some are from books from the early and late 1900s
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked a few links and was brought to jstor website which I was able to login via my acadia info to view the sources.
 * I checked a few links and was brought to jstor website which I was able to login via my acadia info to view the sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is very clear to the point and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Grammatically, I was unable to find any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the organization was good. The sections in her sandbox altered the original sections. I think when added to the original article that problem would not occur as I assume it was because the article was just copy and pasted into the sandbox as a reference.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * This article is more complete with the addition of conflict of orders and showing the status which the patricians faced against the plebeians plays a huge role in patrician history.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is easy to read for the average person who just wants a quick summary of patricians. Some articles I have read I have to google certain section of it to understand more. This article I did not have to do that.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding a bit more detail in the conflict of orders woould be a nice touch.