User:Pinkcats99/Cornelia (mother of the Gracchi)/Forgetfulpumpkin 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? Pinkcats99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User talk:Pinkcats99/Cornelia (mother of the Gracchi)

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
Yes, the lead did reflect the new content added. There is no introductory sentence or brief description it just jumps into the biography of Cornelia and it leaves me confused because I do not know who she is. A brief description would ground the biography and the page would flow better.

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
Yes, it wither clarifies or corrects information that was incorrect. The content added is up to date. There is content that is missing. When was she born? Where is she from? What is the time period? Why was she important? Who were her sons (politicians, government officials, emperors, etc.)? How did she help their careers? What was her role? How long did this role last? Did she create change? Answers to these question would give the reader a fuller understanding of who she is and why she is important. It does address and equity gap as it is providing information on women in history.

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 added is neutral. There are a view words that may not read as neutral like "problematic" and "controversial", but those were not added by the user they were there originally. I feel like all viewpoints are represented. I do not think the content is persuasive.

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
I do not think there were any new secondary sources added. The sources do seem current and reflect the topic. The links do work. I do not think the sources include marginalized authors.

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 content added is well written and grammatically correct. I feel like the content is well organized and formatted. but should include a lead. I feel as though more content could be added because there did not seem to be much changed (I understand it is still in the rough draft process though).

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?

Images and media evaluation
The images included were helpful and depicted the topic that was being discussed. They are well captioned and cited. They do adhere the Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?

Overall evaluation
I would encourage the user to add a lead and round out the sections "Biography" and "Role in Her Son's Political Career" to fill in the gaps and provide a clear understanding of why she is important. I also feel like adding links to important places and people will strengthen the page. I felt there were not many changes made to the existing page, but the information that was added is beneficial. Overall, I can tell that the user put a lot of time, effort, and research into the wiki page. I feel like this is a great start for a rough draft and I hope the constructive criticism helps improve the page even more.