User:Maugrin/Collegium (ancient Rome)/UhOhSpaghettio378 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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
The updates made to the lead by the user are extremely effective in giving a brief overview of what a Collegium is. The original lead only gave a bare minimum definition of the collegium, but the additions made to the lead give a concise but effective explanation on its place in Roman society and why they are formed.

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
I think the content added really fleshes out the statement in the Lead that collegiums are legal entities, as the the information that has been added talks about the laws that regulate collegiums in depth. I do wonder if you should maybe also give a similar treatment to the religious collegia section in the original article because it is just bulleted lists of Latin names, with little actual information.

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 comes across as very neutral. It doesn't try to push any kind of opinion or agenda, it just states facts about the Collegia.

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
Source authors and formats are diverse. The links to the websites all work. All of the sources do seem a little dated, the most recent being from 2011 and the oldest being 1973. However, I'm also personally not sure how often information on these kinds of things actually gets updated so a 10-year old article could not be as out of date as I think it is. The sources seem to cover a wide variety of specific topics in regards to collegia which is good.

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
The new content is very well-written, I think it very clearly explains about civic collegia in only a couple of paragraphs. I would say that if you cannot find a source to back-up that one statement about needing only three members to be a collegia, than perhaps it can be deleted. In the second sentence of the second paragraph you have repeated "the implementation of".

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?