User:RachelKWalsh/Disability in ancient Rome/AncientWeapons 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? RachelKWalsh/Disability in ancient Rome
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:RachelKWalsh/RomeDraft

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
Overall the lead is concise and to the point, the breaking down of the disabilities between " honorable characteristics or moral increasing traits," a citation would help expand on this statement. Adding the statement has enhanced your lead and with the table of contents, leads to paragraphs are concise and not overly detailed.

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?

Content evaluation
The paragraph dealing with Medical Opinions is clear and concise and your information is up-to-date.

Your second statement in the paragraph: Roman Laws on disability still requires a citation or you could remove it and find up to date information that prove that piece. I would recommend looking up the Twelve Tables and then cite it as being the source.

Your topic under the heading "Notable Disabled Romans" requires examination to see if this paragraph is overstated or do you require it for you article. If required, I would edit it by toning in down or making the descriptions a little bit more concise.

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 information that is being added is neutral and does not appear to lean towards a particular position, your points are well laid out. Except the Paragraph dealing with "Notable Disabled Romans", where it should be re-examine for clarity.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All your sources shown to be up to date, and your links work well and your sources show that they reflect your topic well.

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
You should proof read your draft for missing citations, and some grammatical problems like roman, should be Roman, your Paragraph Headings should be capitalized. Overall the content added is very well-organized.

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
Are there any images that could be found to enhance your draft and the article? If so, they should be added with proper 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
Overall this redraft of this article is very well done, but it is lacking imagery if possible, correction of common grammatical mistakes and one or citations.