User:Sappho Cornelia Catula/Clodia Pulchra (wife of Metellus)/Sheepreplicant9402 Peer Review

Peer review
Note: So it appears the original article has been deleted, which makes comparing your edits to the original difficult. Looking at the history of the page, it looks like you may have been the creator though, so I'm not entirely sure. I'm certainly no wikipedia expert. Regardless, I'll do my best peer review on the article as I can!

General info

 * Reviewing: Sappho Cornelia Catula
 * Link to draft: User:Sappho Cornelia Catula/Clodia Pulchra (wife of Metellus)

Lead
This lead does an excellent job of giving a concise and engrossing overview of who Clodia is. It is not overly detailed, but does not feel incomplete. I don't think I would change anything.

Content
The content added does much to add to the overall article. The content is up to date and contributed to the collective knowledge of the subject. Everything was appropriate and helped to round out the article.

Tone and Balance
The tone appears to be balanced and I can't find any degree of bias toward one position or another throughout the article.

Sources and References
All of your sources look appropriate and from reputable places. All of the links work and there appears to be a fair amount of diversity in your sources as well. Good work.

Organization
I think this is an excellent article. I only have a few suggestions:


 * Clodia's death is kind of buried in the bottom of the 'Controversies' subsection. I would create a subsection after Controversies (eg. Early Life, Marriage, Controversies, and then Death)
 * In the 'Early Life' subsection you write 'Her mother is uncertain, many historians...' - I would just break this into two sentences, but I'm nitpicking at this point.

I wish I had more suggestions, but this article is a pretty satisfactory read. Only a few small things stood out to me as needing improvement.

Images and Media
The one image used is appropriate and captioned to the extent it could be. If possible, another few images would add to the article.

For New Articles Only

 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Sources are extensive and appropriate.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * It seems exhaustive and I do not possess the background knowledge necessary to determine whether or not the article accurately represents 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?
 * Yes, the article follows a logical and traditional structure
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, much.

Overall impressions/evaluation
Good job! I think this is a particularly well done article. There are just a few small changes I suggested above that would add to the flow of the article. Overall, the article is especially easy to read, while still being informative and carrying a strong narrative flow. Well done.