User:UhOhSpaghettio378/Twelve Tables/Maugrin 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? (provide username) - I'm reviewing "UhOhSpaghettio378's"  draft of an article on the Twelve Tables
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:UhOhSpaghettio378/Twelve Tables

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 -
This draft doesn't focus on the lead section. The existing lead section is rather strong as it is, in my opinion.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation -
Great content additions. Many of the Tables in the existing article are missing in the "Laws of the Twelve Tables" section, and the additions of this draft address those clear gaps. All tables now have a description for the aforementioned section, which is great!

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 draft retains a neutral, informative tone. I don't see any issues with how the content is presented.

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

Sources and references evaluation -
The additions from this draft all have the same source. The source is from Princeton via Project Gutenberg and is a direct translation of the Twelve Tables, so I wouldn't say there's an issue with the reliability. Considering the content of the focused section isn't really interpretive, I don't think you would necessarily need a robust bibliography in order to get multiple viewpoints. The translation is from 2005, which seems recent enough. One could argue for adding another translation for the sake of cross-referencing, but that might be more on the nit-picky side.

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 -
Organization is logical and I didn't run into any sentence-level issues. One thought I had was about Tables IV, VIII, and IX. The other descriptors of the Tables both in your draft and most of the rest of the article organize the contents of the law in a kind of list format, while IV, VIII, and IX are formatted more like a paragraph. I don't think it's a big deal, but maybe those Tables could be reformatted to be lists as well. Having each section formatted similarly could help with clarity, but it's just something to think about rather than an issue.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation -
The content added is vitally important for improving the article. Having a complete look at the laws of each Table really helps the overall strength of the article. The new sections do a good job illustrating the laws each Table covers and includes examples of situations where the laws would apply as well as direct quotes from the translation. Perhaps the way the new sections could be improved would be to expand the base of sources and add more interpretation on the social effects of some of the laws. Overall, I think this is a really good addition to the existing article! Hope some of this helps!