User:PolluxMariusPetrus/Rhea Silvia/History2112 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) PolluxMariusPetrus
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PolluxMariusPetrus/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been vaguely updated to reflect new content. The user mentions that the story of Rhea Silvia is told in "fragments" through the works of Ennius, Annales and Quintus Fabius Pictor, but does not reference Annales or Quintus Fabius Pictor's work throughout the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence is concise and to the point. It states that Rhea Silvia was the mother of Romulus and Remus and that her story is told predominately through Livy's History of Rome.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include a brief description of any of the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does include information that is not present in the article. Again, the works of Ennius, Annales and Quintus Fabius Pictor are mentioned within the lead but only Ennius is sited within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise but could be improved using the critiques above.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is as up to date as I think it can be. Like many of the more niche topics in Roman history you have to look towards historians like Livy and those who have written about Livy for much of the content, which PolluxMariusPetrus has done here. With that they have also employed Mathisen's Ancient Roman Civilization: History and Sources which was published recently in 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Considering that Rhea Silvia is not an overly broad topic I would say that PolluxMariusPetrus has not left out any important details or added content that does not belong. Relevant content to literature, Academia, and Pop Culture sections have also been added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral. No bias appears to be put forward throughout the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of Livy is predominantly represented. While PolluxMariusPetrus does mention that Livy is where much of what we know of Rhea Silvia comes from, they do discuss Plutarch and other authors whose views are not expressed in the detail the Livy's is.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added is heavily focused on Livy, but seeing as though Livy's perspective is what a lot of historical knowledge is based on for many elements of Roman history, I would not say the content added is persuading the reader inaccurately.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The new content is very well cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources appear to reflect the available literature and the appropriate literature to have included.
 * Are the sources current? Like I discussed above, the content is as current as it can be in my opinion and is cited accordingly.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the available links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise, clear and fairly easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what has been added to the article, there does not appear to be any spelling mistakes. I am not one to comment on the grammatical errors as I am not great at grammar myself. The majority of the sentences appear to read well and are not choppy or broken up.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The information available on Rhea Silvia is not vast so I would say that the content is well organized for the information that is available to put forward.

Images and Media -
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - PolluxMariusPetrus did not add any 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 has improved the quality of the article. It is evident that the article to begin with was quite thin and only offered a surface understanding of Rhea Silvia's importance to Roman History. By overhauling existing parts of the article and adding new and relevant content with appropriate sources, the article ca only get better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength of the content added is that it is well cited. The majority of the content added comes with citations that are all scholarly sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content could be improved through elaboration. The article does not have a lot of content and then there is a fair amount of information labeled as "deleted" from the original article. In may be that there just is not enough relevant information or source material to elaborate on what can be found about Rhea Silvia but if there is then I believe the article could be filled out a bit more.

Overall evaluation
PolluxMariusPetrus's draft for the Rhea Silvia article is good. They provide relevant information backed up by scholarly sources, they have deleted plagiarism and misinformation, and have not presented a specific bias. The article is still relatively thin even after the contributions made by PolluxMariusPetrus but that could be do to lack of information on the topic. Overall, a decent first draft.