User:SeantrottUML/Auctions in ancient Greece/HanSharma 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? SeantrottUML
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Auctions in ancient Greece

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? You mentioned goods such as food and spices, wool and books, being sold at auctions in the goods commonly sold at auction but did not mention those in the lead. Maybe make the lead more suggesting of the specific details you mention later.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
So far the lead is good, though is a little short. Maybe add some more information that you could go more in detail later on in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, though more information can be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The content is good and concise. Maybe talk about the origins of auctions and how it relates and ties in to ancient Greece? Just a thought. Also, try not to have the word "things" in your article, makes it seem less professional. The ending of the goods commonly sold section can be reworded, not sure if "Boston or New York" needs to be mentioned.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Good tone and good job keeping it neutral.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good sourcing

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added can be reworked as mentioned in the content section. Though it is organized
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Good job organizing the details, make sure to update the lead when all additions are made in you additional sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images as of yes
 * Are images well-captioned? N/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a

Images and media evaluation
Definitely try to find images of auctions especially in ancient Greece. Also make sure to remember citations.

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? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Includes more specific details regarding the topic
 * How can the content added be improved? As mentioned in the content section, some things added can be re worked such as the last couple sentences in the goods commonly sold section.

Overall evaluation
So far, I think this is a good start. Their are some suggestions I have mentioned which you can see in the content section of the peer review. Try to stay focused more on the "Ancient Greece" aspect of auctioning. I saw that you mentioned New York and Boston as examples of what auctioning is like though I am not sure if that needs to be listed. The content you have listed (Currency used, who went to auctions, why are auctions important) are good mentions to go more into detail. This is an interesting article and I am excited to read this when complete.