User:Ns.thot03/Roman funerary practices/Racheldeible 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? Ns.thot03
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Roman funerary practices

*Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, there has been nothing added to the Lead yet. The lead covers everything in the rest of the article pretty well.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the first sentence is concise and clearly introduces topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, should be more about beliefs of afterlife and less of just focusing on cemeteries.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the second paragraph should be moved into one of the paragraphs regarding funerals.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed concerning some topics but also does not mention some other topics that are later in the article.

Lead evaluation
The lead starts off really well, with a strong intro that properly portrays the topics of the article. However, the paragraph after that is not related to all of the topics in the article and instead just focuses on specific information about cemeteries.Due to this, I think that this paragraph should be moved to under the tombs section, as an intro to cemeteries before gong into the topic of wealthy vs commoners section. Additionally, the last part of the lead should be apart of the beginning of the funeral rites section.

*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?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not.

Content evaluation
As far as content goes, the article had relevant and reliable information, however it lacked in areas that concerned missing content or content where it did not belong. There should be some more information concerning the afterlife and specifically religion, due to the fact that it is a large part of why the roman funerary practices are the way that they are. Additionally, the Epitaths section should go more in depth. There should also be more information under the category of Sarcophagi that should include a better introduction to the topic. The section seems very disorganized and is hard to follow due to the lack of clarity concerning defining what Sarcophagi actually is.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it is all neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No I think that this article does a good job of simply stating all the facts regarding how the Roman handled death and there is no bias in any direction.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I do not think that anything needs to be changed in this category. All of the information in this article did not seem biased.

*Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes the new sentence added has a good source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, I think there is in depth information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are outdated and from the 1900's but I do not think this matters much or should greatly impact the reliability due to the fact that this article is about an ancient civilization.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, it seems like a lot of the sources are diverse and there are autobiographies which is helpful for first hand information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * A lot of the sources are from books so there are not many links to go to, but all of the websites work.

Sources and references evaluation
So far, there is no change that needs to made to the way the sources are sited. The student did a good job so far of making sure to avoid plagiarism and citing sources accurately. Additionally, the sources that the article originally had seem like reliable and accurate sources.

*Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it is concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is mostly broken up into good sections that cover the main parts of the topic. However, commemorations and funeral rites are confusing and I think that they should be distinguished and defined before either of them go into the subtopics. The majority of the commemorations section should be rearranged or better explained because the sections underneath it are hard to follow for the reader and hard to relate the parts underneath.
 * The section "Other customs" I think should be moved into the afterlife section rather than care of the dead.

Organization evaluation
The article is mostly broken up into good sections that cover the main parts of the topic. However, commemorations and funeral rites are confusing due to the lack of an intro to explain them. Due to this, I think that they should be distinguished and defined before either of them go into the subtopics. The majority of the commemorations section should be rearranged or better explained because the sections underneath it are hard to follow for the reader and hard to relate the parts underneath. Additionally, I think that the section regrading military funerals and burials should be moved under the bigger section of commemorations.

*Images and Media- no images added, already existing images are all well captioned and placed well.
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?
 * The content added to the article did not enhance much in the article but it was cited in an appropriate manner.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Seems like there was precautions to make sure it was not plagiarism.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more content in the parts specified under the content section.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article has a good foundation as far as content goes, but is lacking information in certain sections as well as the arrangements of certain topics. The lead starts off really well, with a strong intro that properly portrays the topics of the article. However, the paragraph after that is not related to all of the topics in the article and instead just focuses on specific information about cemeteries. Due to this, I think that this paragraph should be moved to under the tombs section, as an intro to cemeteries before gong into the topic of wealthy vs commoners section. Additionally, the last part of the lead should be apart of the beginning of the funeral rites section. As far as content goes, the article had relevant and reliable information, however it lacked in areas that concerned missing content or content where it did not belong. There should be some more information concerning the afterlife and specifically religion, due to the fact that it is a large part of why the roman funerary practices are the way that they are. Additionally, the Epitaths section should go more in depth. There should also be more information under the category of Sarcophagi that should include a better introduction to the topic. The section seems very disorganized and is hard to follow due to the lack of clarity concerning defining what Sarcophagi actually is. The article is mostly broken up into good sections that cover the main parts of the topic. However, commemorations and funeral rites are confusing due to the lack of an intro to explain them. Due to this, I think that they should be distinguished and defined before either of them go into the subtopics. The majority of the commemorations section should be rearranged or better explained because the sections underneath it are hard to follow for the reader and hard to relate the parts underneath. Additionally, I think that the section regrading military funerals and burials should be moved under the bigger section of commemorations. So far, there is no change that needs to made to the way the sources are sited. The student did a good job so far of making sure to avoid plagiarism and citing sources accurately. Additionally, the sources that the article originally had seem like reliable and accurate sources.