User talk:Ns.thot03/Roman funerary practices

Whose work are you reviewing? Ns.thot03 Link to draft you're reviewing: Roman funerary practices Guiding questions:
 * General info[edit]
 * Lead[edit]

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there has been nothing added to the Lead yet. The lead covers everything in the rest of the article pretty well. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the first sentence is concise and clearly introduces topic. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, should be more about beliefs of afterlife and less of just focusing on cemeteries. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the second paragraph should be moved into one of the paragraphs regarding funerals. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed concerning some topics but also does not mention some other topics that are later in the article. Lead evaluation[edit] Guiding questions:
 * Content[edit]

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 Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not. Content evaluation[edit] Tone and Balance[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes it is all neutral. 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 I think that this article does a good job of simply stating all the facts regarding how the Roman handled death and there is no bias in any direction. Tone and balance evaluation[edit] Guiding questions:
 * Sources and References[edit]

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the new sentence added has a good source. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, I think there is in depth information. Are the sources current? Some are outdated and from the 1900's but I do not think this matters much or should greatly impact the reliability due to the fact that this article is about an ancient civilization. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, it seems like a lot of the sources are diverse and there are autobiographies which is helpful for first hand information. Check a few links. Do they work? A lot of the sources are from books so there are not many links to go to, but all of the websites work. Sources and references evaluation[edit] Guiding questions:
 * Organization[edit]

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is concise Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is mostly broken up into good sections that cover the main parts of the topic. However, commemorations and funeral rites are confusing and I think that they should be distinguished and defined before either of them go into the subtopics. The majority of the commemorations section should be rearranged or better explained because the sections underneath it are hard to follow for the reader and hard to relate the parts underneath. The section "Other customs" I think should be moved into the afterlife section rather than care of the dead. Organization evaluation[edit] Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
 * Images and Media- no images added, already existing images are all well captioned and placed well.[edit]

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? Images and media evaluation[edit] If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
 * For New Articles Only[edit]

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? New Article Evaluation[edit] Guiding questions:
 * Overall impressions[edit]

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Meh What are the strengths of the content added? Seems like there was precautions to make sure it was not plagiarism. How can the content added be improved? Just add more sentences, what's added so far is fine.