User:Nathangooi/Caratacus/MikeEK1998 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nathangooi


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nathangooi/Caratacus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Caratacus

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.)

Content:

In terms of content, your article additions are relevant, up to date, and as you have indicated yourself, you are still in the process of adding more and filling in the gaps of relevant content needed. Nothing appears out of place either. Apart, of course, as you yourself have indicated the image that you will be replacing. So overall I would say you've done a good job with the content of your article so far.

Tone and Balance:

You do an effective job at remaining neutral with the added material and it doesn't appear biased towards any one position. Perhaps, if the information is attainable, it would be good to include another source for the Captive in Rome section as everything appears to be from Tacitus's perspective. While a great source, adding another one to corroborate or even dispute what Tacitus claims would be helpful.

Sources and References:

All of your sources appear to be good, peer-reviewed articles, journals or ancient text databases and furthermore the content you've added appears to accurately represent these sources. I will say however that I was not able to get full access to the Jorit Wintjes article when I followed the link. I bring this up because I don't know if that means you can't use the source on Wikipedia because it's not available to the general public. I'm not sure on that but I would look into it. Your modern scholarship is also fairly recent which was nice to see as it gives a fresh perspective on things. It is also good to know that you are still searching for more sources and information to further your work on the article.

Organization:

The content you have added is well-written. You provide clear and concise explanations on what's been added and what you plan to add. Furthermore, you have quite nicely organized this into the relevant sections preventing any confusion.

Images and Media:

As you've only mentioned planning an addition/substitution image, I will speak on that briefly. Your plan sounds solid and beneficial to your article. If you're questioning whether the new image should be a map, or just that you'll also include a map, I would personally go with both: An image of Caratacus that you find more suitable for the article AND a map to strengthen the article further with a different form of imagery that is lacking.

Overall Impressions:

From what you've added so far, I think that you've improved the article and from what you're planning, I would also say that that is going to make your article even more complete. I am curious if you will be adding to more sections then the ones you've provided on your first draft, or if you've just chosen to focus on these sections. Depending on your plan for the article I don't think looking at the other sections would hurt but if you decide to focus on the history on it's own, I can see that you have great things planned.

For your strengths, I like your focus on the military and tactics of the different armies (both British and Roman), especially because the look at ancient British tactics is an angle I don't think many consider as the Roman military model is so dominant in our minds, especially when looking at Roman battles, so to see the other side of things is an interesting area to tackle.

I think you are on the right track and have a good set plan for what you want to do going forward which is great to see. Good job!