User:Margo.C.45/Ernesta Bordoni/Nicky316 Peer Review

General info
Margo.C.45
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Margo.C.45/Ernesta Bordoni
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I really enjoyed reading your article, I thought it was very clear and you did a good job of making it easy to read! Here is my peer review.

Lead
I think your lead has a strong introductory sentence that summarizes what the article is about. You mention where and when she was born as well as what she was known for. I also liked how you included the information on the impact she had in the world of criminology and anthropology. I also think this is a good reflection of how you set up your article in general. I do think there is a bit of an imbalance in the ratio of her life compared to the academic reception of her life, so you could probably add in details such as where she was active. I also think you could condense the rest of the lead into two sentences to reduce the ratio, as the details will be explored further later in the article.

Content
I think the content you have added is all very relevant and good information to know, as you cover both her own life and the impact she left. I also think you did a good job of making sure to add in context as to the circumstances surrounding her life and her profession. I think including the information on the laws on prostitution at that time in Italy also helps a lot. I also think you did a really good job going into the reception of her crime and the various philosophies that emerged from studying her.

One thing I can think of to add that would be helpful is information after her being jailed. Do we know when she died? Or where or how? I know sometimes it's incredibly unclear what happened to people, but I think any more information you can find on the last parts of her life would be really helpful and make the article feel more fleshed out regarding her life. Or if we know the names of her parents, as I know we know the name of her half-brother. Maybe there's more context regarding that, but once again I know it's incredibly vague oftentimes so that might not be possible.

Or possibly more information on the proceedings of the trial, such as how long it lasted, it's reception by the public, or the publicity it garnered. Or perhaps if you know anything more about the crime itself, such as the time of day or when it happened? And establishing who Zannino was to Bordoni at the beginning of the paragraph. That way there's a clearer picture of the relations that were going on.

Tone
I think your tone is nicely balanced, dealing with the topic of marginalized groups in a way that does not sound overly biased. You make sure to address both sides of the conflict without siding with one opinion. You make sure to directly state when something was said by a figure as to avoid bias. And with your inclusion of the academic discussions of different philosophies, it keeps the tone neutral and balanced. You provided the context as to her situation without being overly biased in her direction. Maybe to add more viewpoints you could include some more modern takes on her reasoning and morality if there are any.

Sources and References
You do a good job citing your sources and stating where you got your information from, I was never confused as to where something originated from. They are all academic sources as well, and they are reliable. You also have a variety of types of information, from sources about crime to one about prostitution in Italy directly. The sources are all relatively current as well, most of them after 2000. They also have both English and Italian sources to give two cultural differences in your sources.

Organization
I think you organized it nicely, especially starting out with her early life and then the crime and then the academic reception. I think it's naturally chronological which flows nicely and makes it feel easier to read. One suggestion I can make is maybe separating the crime itself with the trial as to distinguish the two a bit more. I think it could add more dimension to describing her life.

Overall impressions
I thought overall that this was a really nicely written article, and you presented a comprehensive outline of her life and impact in a concise way. The only suggestions I have is maybe to try and add a little more context on the crime itself if that's even possible. Or her life after she was convicted. Even if it's just mentioning that it is unknown what happened to her. I did really enjoy reading about your historical figure though, and you did a good job explaining her notability through her impact on criminology.