User:Of Noble Berth/Roman technology/Thegodofchaos Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Of Noble Berth
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Of Noble Berth/Roman technology

Lead evaluation
The lead has had many non-neutral statements from the original article removed to improve the tone. The sentences "The technology developed by a civilization is limited by the available sources of energy, and the Romans were no different in this sense. Accessible sources of energy, determine the the ways in which power is generated." Might be better written as "Roman technological development was limited by available energy sources." The current way it is written is somewhat flowery and less concise.

Content evaluation
There is a good deal of content added both in quantity and relevancy. From what I can tell, the content is up to date, and I can not think of any content missing.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral in tone, and comments from the lead have been removed to improve that. There is no attempt to persuade the reader. No viewpoint is overrepresented nor underrepresented.

Sources and references evaluation
There are four sources, two from 1978, one from 1993 and one from 2014 so some recent material but mostly dated, however that may be beyond the users control. Reference 17 has an issue with the URL that could be fixed. None have ISBN numbers, and most do not have links to the sources, the one link on the page does work.There are many in text citations backing up new content.

Organization evaluation
I personally find it too organized. I don't think sub-sub-sections are needed. For example, under Waterworks, you can discuss Aqueducts, Dams, and Sanitation in a couple paragraphs as you have, but without the headers causing another sub section within a sub section. Much is well written and concise, however there is certainly some flowery language and some unnecessary comments. Several comments such as the statement on perfect numbers in the section on the Pantheon could be removed and have the info still covered by linking to the different pages on Wikipedia. Definitely something to consider.

Images and media evaluation
No images or media. These could greatly benefit the article, particularly in the new sections.

Overall evaluation
Overall there is a lot of good content added. There are no images, media, or links to other articles which could help the article greatly. I personally would reconsider the organization of the article. Still quite a good first draft.