User:Jacques Blac/Roman graffiti/Maugrin 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) - I'm reviewing the user Jacques Blac's draft on the article on Roman graffiti.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jacques Blac/Roman graffiti

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think the lead section functions pretty well, but I think you might be able to add onto it if you decide to work with that section. Considering the content in the rest of the article, maybe you could add a general statement about Roman graffiti’s place in how archeologists and historians learned about Roman society? As it stands, the lead section talks about the take-aways from the study of graffiti, but maybe it could connect a bit more to facts like graffiti being a key source since the 1800’s and that it was initially dismissed at first, or the stuff from the “Studying graffiti” section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that 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?

Content evaluation
You've definitely added some really interesting content that really fleshes out the rest of the article. Similar to what I said in about the lead section, I do think that the article as a whole could use some more on the study of graffiti. If you decide to expand your draft into that section, I think it might have a real positive effect on the overall strength of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content you've added does a good job at presenting the information from a distance and keeping neutral. The balance of the article definitely leans toward graffiti from Pompeii, but that might be logical due to Pompeii's unique preservation. The graffiti from the Athens was really interesting to me, maybe you could find other examples of Roman graffiti outside of Italy?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources! They’re recent, relevant, academic, and well-balanced in their use. Don’t really have anything to add.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think the structure makes sense. The one thought that I had in terms of organization concerned the aforementioned “Roman Market in Athens” section. It’s an awesome section and it made me think, “What about other examples from Roman spaces outside of Italy?” Maybe you could bring in other examples and flesh it out into a bigger section on graffiti on the Roman periphery?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
You've done a good job fleshing out the existing structure of the article with more relevant content. The article is definitely more "complete", though I feel like the other sections outside of the "Graffiti Samples" section now feel smaller than they already were. As a result, the only questions I was left with were on those sections that were outside of your additions. On improving what you have, I think adding some images would help illustrate some of the kinds of graffiti you're talking about. Images of the games and riddles I think would especially improve that part of the article. Overall, you're on a really nice track. I hope some of this is helpful for you as you move forward on your drafting!