User:RunaBellona/Hispala Faecenia/Nealthane Peer Review

Peer Review of Hispala Faecenia Draft
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Peer Review of Hispala Faecenia by RunaBellona
 * Link: User:RunaBellona/Hispala Faecenia

Lead

 * The lead in is well-written. However, do not forget to source where you got that information from in your second sentence even if you hyperlink one particular event, as it may be the case that that information comes from another source entirely. If this is copied and pasted from the Wiki page, I would recommend finding its source to add in the citation as you, yourself are using it as a lead in to what you will talk about. In that regard, I am quite confused as you talk about Hispala Faecenia's role in the Bacchanalian Scandal and yet immediately go into talking about Hispala herself. I would expand upon that in your lead in section to help the reader know what it is you will be talking about first (her love life section isn't referenced to in the lead in section).

Content

 * In regards to the character of Hispala, the author really expands on her love-life, the role she played in the Bacchanalian Scandal, and other areas that the author found interesting and mentioned. Upon checking the reference dates, all of the content is up-to-date, quite relevant, and well sourced. There does not seem to be content that is missing, but I one major area that I have issue with is the fact that the author fails to bold what she added in as new material and what had already been there beforehand. However upon closer inspection this article itself seems to be the original article, with some material sourced from the Bacchanalia as the author mentions in their analysis of Hispala's role.That makes this process relatively easy but also difficult for one reason, and that is that the author may have updated the original Bacchanalia article with information about Hispala, which is good but how do we know what information was used? I would suggest making that clear in your headings by leaving a message saying "this information was or will be inputted into the Bacchanalia" as that will let me know that you are in fact working on updtaing one article while creating a whole new article for an unaddressed Roman figure.

Tone and Balance

 * The article lacks bias by referring to the sources when a particular point is made or when the author seeks to clarify something. Furthermore, the article itself is neutral overall, no language is used that implies a personal point of view. That being said, there are certain areas that I find to be over-represented, mainly this quote; "Those rites were performed by women. No man used to be admitted. They had three stated days in the year on which persons were initiated among the Bacchanalians, in the daytime. The matrons used to be appointed priestesses, in rotation. Paculla Minia, a Campanian, when priestess, made an alteration in every particular, as if by the direction of the Gods. For she first introduced men; changed the time of celebration, from day to night; and, instead of three days in a year, appointed 5 days of initiation in each month. From the time that the rites thus made common, and men were intermixed with women, and the licentious freedom of the night was added, there was nothing wicked, nothing flagitious, that had not been practiced among them. There was more frequent pollution of men with each other than with women. If any were less patient in submitting to this dishonour, or more averse to the commission of vice, they were sacrificed as victims. To think nothing unlawful was the grand maxim of their religion. The men, as if bereft of reason, uttered predictions, with frantic contortions of their bodies; The women, in the habit of Bacchantes, with their hair dishevelled, and carrying blazing torches, ran down to the Tiber, where, dipping their torches in the water, they drew them up again with the flame unextinguished, being composed of native sulphur and charcoal. Their number was exceedingly great now, almost a second state in themselves, and among them were many men and women of noble families.” 
 * This quote is far too long and I can see you are trying to clarify a point but I would reccommend wither shortening it to convey the main points of their testimony or paraphrasing it and then adding in the in-text citation. In addition, you need to be careful when talking about a particular point of view or when telling the reader a particular historical fact, not that it couldn't be shortened or paraphrased better, but also because you are lacking in-text citations and so come off as conveying a personal view or biased point. I can see that everything that has been written is from an read source, make sure to cite it, otherwise your whole article will come off as being biased and non-factual/supported.

Sources and References

 * Not all of the content is backed up by reliable sources (in-text citations), that needs to be made the top priority first and foremost. However, most of the sources used are thoroughly addressed and reflect the available literature on the given topic, with the additional fact that all of them are current. However, none of the hyperlinks lead to a particular page, or of they do its difficult to get in. I would recommend adding in the link to the source (edit your sources manually when they are books, that way you can add in the source link and it makes it easier for the reader to find the source if they do not have access to a library catalog).

Organization

 * The author takes an impersonal approach to the source material and yet, their organization of that material needs improvement. In other words, your sentences are not always clear, concise and easy to read. For example: "Hispala was a well known courtesan which is how she met Aebutius. According to Livy, Hispala has fallen in love with a notable higher class man named Publius Aebutius who lived in the same neighbourhood" - consider this lead in to your discussion of Hispala's love life. Essentially, they conflict with each other and are unclear. It could be rewritten as: "Hispala met met and fell in love with Publius Aebutius, a notable higher class individual who lived in her neighborhood, through her work as a courtesan." - that combines the two sentences and carries the point across in a clear and concise manner.

For New Articles Only & Overall impressions
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Here, there are a number of things that need to be addressed. Your lead in is good, but I would consider expanding upon it more to make it look reflective of an actual Wikipedia article. However, you have plenty of sources that are clearly written in detail, showing that you really went in-depth, accurately representing the available literature on the subject. However, again, you leave out a lot of in-text citations which needs to be corrected before you publish the article itself,. Furthermore, there is no need to highlight where the source came from in the headings (e.g., "Livy's article") as that just overemphasizes what you will be discussing and is not reflective of Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, the article does follow a general similar pattern to other articles with headings, paragraphs, and info-boxes being present. However, it needs to be hyper-linked to a lot more existing sources in order to ensure that it is discoverable.
 * Overall, the article is detailed and even-though though it steers away from being personal or subjective (e.g., "I believe...., Interestingly...."), it requires a more formal use of language, as in many instances sentences are unnecessarily long, informal, and lack certain punctuation (e.g., "." or ",") here and there. In other words, aim to keep your sentences shorter and more concise, as that will help the reader to understand where the sentence is going and what is being conveyed. Lastly, I would also expand on a few areas to let the reader know that you have looked in-depth into all of your articles and not only the one's you found the most interesting, as balance allows for a more clear analysis of the Roman figure you are presenting, and is especially important when creating a new article.