User:TaliaMary/Hrotsvitha/Hroitberg 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? TaliaMary
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TaliaMary/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - the new introductory sentence is less concise than that of the original article. While the new first paragraph is relevant and valuable, it would be more clear if the order of the first and second paragraphs were reversed.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - it does refer to the new sections, although it could be a little clearer! I found myself looking through the contents info box to double check what the sections are.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No. All of the lead information is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - It might benefit from some rearranging and trimming!

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect the new content. It is concise, does not contain any information that is not present in the article, it refers to the sections of the article. I think the new first introductory sentence is "Little is known about Hrotsvitha's personal life, though she is considered the first female writer from the German Lands, little is known about who he was or her beliefs outside her writings." If so, this new introductory sentence is less concise than that of the original article. While the new first paragraph is relevant and valuable, it would be more clear if the order of the first and second paragraphs were reversed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - no, but I noticed that there could be more on the social and religious context of 10th century Germany, and some contemporary feminist interpretations of Hrotsvitha with regards to gender.

Content evaluation
The new content is relevant to the subject and up-to-date. There is no irrelevant content, but I do have a few suggestions on some missing content.

First, you might consider talking more about the atmosphere of Germany in the 10th century. Providing more context on the social, political, and religious conditions of the time would better situate Hrotsvitha in history more broadly, and also make her significance as an early feminist clearer! You could add a section titled "Historical Context" or another title you'd prefer. In this section, you could talk about Stift Gandersheim (the existing wikipedia page, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stift_Gandersheim, is in German, but might be a helpful link?), and the social expectations for noblewomen present there at that time. I found one source explaining that Gandersheim was "highly famed for its asceticism and learned pursuits" ( http://scihi.org/hrotsvitha-gandersheim/ ). Monasteries weren't oppressive religious institutions, but rather places that encouraged intellectual pursuit by both men and women (see Ranft below); women had prescribed roles of intellectual authority as teachers within the monasteries! Additionally, it might be worth mentioning that, as we've discussed in class, there was no concept of plagiarism in 10th century Germany, which might explain Hrotsvitha's "familiarity not only with the Church fathers, but also with classical poets, including Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus and Terence". You might also find a source connecting Hrotsvitha's role in the monastery to virginal feminism (the work by Frankforter below might help!)

Next, the section on Gender and feminism are really well-done! One small way to improve might be to mention some other, non-feminist interpretations of her work. You could also mention the translator of Hrotsvitha's work, Cristbel Marshall, who wrote under the male name Christopher St. John. Also in the gender section, you might talk about the concepts of trisexuation, third sex, or third gender (the source by Finney below makes this connection!). Conversely, you might put information on this connection in the "Modern Perceptions" section, and talk about how the changed meaning of virtue from male to female. The article briefly mentions virtue in the last paragraph of the subsection "Plays and Drama".

Overall, the new content is well thought out and relevant. The biggest improvement in this section would be to add some more information on the historical context of Germany, as well as some contemporary interpretations of Hrotsvitha's work with regards to the concept of a third gender.

Here are the sources I found that might help:

http://scihi.org/hrotsvitha-gandersheim/

Ranft P. (2008) The Early Renaissance. In: Women in Western Intellectual Culture, 600–1500. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230108257_1

Frankforter, A. Daniel. “Hroswitha of Gandersheim and the Destiny of Women.” The Historian, vol. 41, no. 2, 1979, pp. 295–314. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24445109.

Finney, Gail. “Queering the Stage: Critical Displacement in the Theater of Else Lasker-Schüler and Mae West.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, 2003, pp. 54–71. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40247372.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - the content added would benefit from some balancing perspectives.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - yes, the gender and feminism sections are much larger than the section on the interpretation of her works as inauthentic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - the feminist viewpoint is overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - while the dominant interpretation of Hrotsvitha is feminist, the article could benefit from some other perspectives to keep it neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
In the lead, you state "she is one of the very few women who wrote about her life during early middle ages, a history of women in that era from a woman's perspective" (paragraph two). While this is a history of feminism class, there is perhaps too heavy an emphasis on Hrostvitha's feminist work. The only conflicting interpretation of Hrotsvitha's works is that they might have been inauthentic (Works, paragraph one), and this section is pretty small compared to the sections on gender and feminism, which interpret Hrotsvitha through a feminist frame. Also, within the gender and feminism sections, there are no conflicting or alternative feminist perspectives to balance out the dominant interpretation of Hrotsvitha. The largest improvements you could make to ensure a neutral and balanced article is to provide some alternative viewpoints, and make sure all viewpoints take up relatively equal space within the article!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - some content is missing a citation, or the citations are incomplete.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - they do, when combined with the original sources.
 * Are the sources current? - yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - All of the links work!

Sources and references evaluation
While the majority of the original work is cited, the new work seems to be missing a citation or have an incomplete citation. Additionally, all of the writing in the sections Life and Background, Works, Legends, Comedies, and Other Works is not cited. Although, they might have just gotten lost in the process of copying and pasting into your sandbox! On the bright side, all of the sources are current, and the links work. In addition to the references in the original article, a broad array of viewpoints is presented.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - yes, it is concise, clear, and easy to read. However, there is some passive voice, such as in the sentence "her work took thousands of years to be seen as important, performed, and translated into modern languages such as english" (second paragraph in the Feminism section).
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No, there are no spelling or grammatical errors. Although, I'm not sure whether "play write" (second paragraph in the Feminism section) or playwright is the correct spelling.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes, the content is well-organized, but one more section on historical context might be beneficial.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the new content is well-written and well-organized. While there are no major spelling and grammatical errors, the words "play write" in the Feminism section might be amended to "playwright", and there are some uses of passive voice throughout the article, such as in "In the twelfth century there was not many playwrights besides Hrothsvitha" (lead section, paragraph two). I'm not sure whether "play write" (second paragraph in the Feminism section) or playwright is the correct spelling, but the article uses both spellings. Additionally, breaking the content into five sections is very effective because it portrays a clear timeline of Hrotsvitha's life. Although, one way to improve the organization of the article would be to add a section on historical context at the beginning.

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?

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, the added material fills in some gaps in the original article and also adds new information, like a section on feminism, that was missing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - clear, concise, easy to read, relevant, well-organized.
 * How can the content added be improved? - citations, content, organization!

Overall evaluation
Overall, this draft has many strengths: the new content is well-researched, well-organized, and well-written, and it is concise and relevant. The added section on feminism and the expanded gender section are especially well-done, because they provide a well-researched and comprehensive summary of Hrotsvitha's feminist interpretations.

The article's citations, content, and organization are the largest areas for improvement. First, the article is really missing citations, which, as I'm sure you know, is a very important requirement for credible writing! In terms of content, you might choose to incorporate more from the lecture on Hrotsvitha, especially the parts on a third gender, monasteries, and virginal feminism. Also, a very specific, nitpicky criticism is the use of passive voice. Active voice is more straightforward, and can make writing more concise! Some smaller suggestions include discussing the historical and social context of 10th century Germany, especially to show that women like Hrotsvitha were empowered by religion to be intellectual authorities. The sections on gender and feminism are really well-done, and to make them even better you might include some alternative interpretations of Hrotsvitha's work.