User:Maugrin/Collegium (ancient Rome)/AgardW40 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
I am reviewing the work of Maugrin on Collegium.

User:Maugrin/Collegium (ancient Rome)

Lead
Guiding questions:

Lead evaluation
 * 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?


 * 1) The lead has been significantly updated. Was originally a few sentences, now a good paragraph with citations.
 * 2) The intro sentence is indeed concise and to the point, describing the article topic.
 * 3) The lead does in fact describe the two sections that are described later on in the article.
 * 4) The lead seems to include all relevant information that directly applies to the rest of the article.
 * 5) The lead is relatively concise and not too overly detailed.
 * 6) Overall, a fairly solid lead.

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

 * 1) The content is relevant to the topic, as they detail the two main factors of Collegium: the religious and civil collegia.
 * 2) The content added is up-to-date.
 * 3) There is one part in the second section where it states "citation needed." Most likely should take that out if the source is not found.
 * 4) Overall, I think they did a good job in adding more relevant information and citations, but if they could remove that one "citation needed" section, would be even better. Possibly supplement it with something new.

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

 * 1) The content added is neutral, and does not seem to skew one way or another.
 * 2) There are no claims of "many people," or "most say," but rather it states a neutral tone.
 * 3) Overall, I see no problem with the tone and balance of the added information.

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

 * 1) Yes, the sources all seem like reliable secondary sources, all of which are relevant to the topic.
 * 2) There is one semi-outdated source that was published in 1973, but it still works and adds to the topic, and it is not disputed in accuracy. Wouldn't change the source.
 * 3) All works are from a diverse spectrum of authors, and the links all seem to work.
 * 4) There is the one unsourced "citation needed" section, which should be taken out.
 * 5) Overall, the added sources are beneficial and helpful to the article and topic.

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

 * 1) The content added is well-written, it is clear and easy to read.
 * 2) The content does have some grammatical errors, but only in one or two places, otherwise very well done.
 * 3) The content added is well-organized and broken into sections. Clear to read and understand.
 * 4) Overall, I see no problems with the organization of this article. 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

 * 1) Added content has drastically improved the article, as it is now more complete.
 * 2) The amount of new sources added is a real strength of this article, and it is neutral and flows really well.
 * 3) It can be improved through little word changes and errors that are found along the way, but overall, the added content is significantly better than the original article.
 * 4) The one section with "citation needed," should be taken out, unless they can find its original source.
 * 5) Possibly information or a few sentences should be added to the religious collegia from the original article, to make sure the civil collegia does not outweigh or inundate the religious collegia.
 * 6) Overall, very good information added, and it made it a better article.