User:Justinian Sappadilli/Plague of Athens/Mandafur 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? (Justinian Sappadilli)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Justinian Sappadilli/sandbox#Aftermath

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead of the article is not edited or updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no specific mention of the sections in the lead. I think you should put something at the end of the lead about the "Aftermath" section added, since the lead only mentions the cause and time-frame of the epidemic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The lead mentions dates where the plague returned to Athens, but this is not mentioned at any point in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead could be written with more specific information in the main article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not a lot was added to the article, so some missing information could likely be found with more research.

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? In the section added, try adding more information for both the citizens and non-citizens. There aren't any specific figures mentioned in the section, but you may be able to find some with more research. In the Background info section, there is mention of Thucydides surviving, and how Pericles perished. Maybe write in the Aftermath section about Thucydides' account of what happened after Pericles died? You can move info from one section into a different one if it makes the article more cohesive.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some information presented is not cited
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are only a couple sources added, but they are relevant to the topic
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * 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
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * 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? I think that adding a section discussing the aftermath of the Plague is a great idea, but there is a lot more that can be said about what happened after. There is a lot of info in the other sections which is relevant to the new added section, so try to move relevant info into your section so that the article can present information chronologically to the reader.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The info you added to the pre-existing sections conclude the ideas discussed in each section nicely. To reiterate, the section you added gives strength to the article, since it concludes the event and discusses what implications the plague had in the years following.
 * How can the content added be improved? Be more specific, particularly in the section you wrote. Find some important figures who died from the plague, and what had to be done to compensate for that. Also, write about the implications the plague had on the workers and soldiers, and how their work was compensated after many of them had died. You should see if you can find some more sources too.

Overall evaluation
'''I'm not too sure what to write other than what has already been said, but overall, the article is great. I think the biggest difference will come from moving information out of the other sections that fits into the Aftermath section, so that the whole article becomes chronologically organised.'''

Good job Justin :)