User talk:Tjna57/Lucretia

'''Lucretia Article Peer-Review: ''' This a concise description of my thoughts about the article: a complete checklist can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tjna57/Lucretia/Googoogoo165_Peer_Review

This article is effective at quickly conveying the importantce of the topic and how it relates to Roman history through the first sentence. The rest of the lead could potentially benefit from a more diverse focus on other aspects of the article then the account of her rape. This would allow the reader to more easily understand what topics come up in the article before they get to them, and not overly focus on one part in particular.

The sections of the article are organized well, following a sensible order. No need for changes here, as they effectively convey information about Lucretia in a logical order.

The coverage balance of the article is for the most part sensible. A few places in the article could benifit from added citations, such as in the lead, "evidence points to the historical existence of a woman named Lucretia and an event that played a critical part in the downfall of the monarchy", but the claims themselves paint a good picture of the topic that doesn't try to convince the leader of any viewpoint in particular. Cross-examinations of existing sources is excellent and gives the sense of understanding what different sources had to say about the topics of the article. The "Revolution" sexction could benefit from being a bit more concise and closely connected to the topic, as it has its own mainpage, but it still makes sense within the context of the article.

As described previously, the content neutrality of the article is excellent and does not overly rely on a single source or try to convince the reader of one viewpoint over another from equally reputable sources.

The sources for the article are reliable, and the mix of primary sources like Livy with secondary sources like Cornell allow for a variety of persepctives and analysis about the article's topic. There are a few unsourced statements listed in the article, but you've already marked them that they need a source for the most part. Seeking more diversity in your sources could potentially further contribute to the credibility of your article, but the existing array of sources already has fairly strong coverage of the article's contents.

Great work! Hope this feedback is useful. If you have any questions, feel free to reply. Thanks! Googoogoo165 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Lucretia Article Peer-Review:

For a complete checklist follow the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tjna57/Lucretia/XAgememnonX_Peer_Review

It is true as has already been stated that you could expand upon your focus if you so wish. However, it seems you have targeted the most important part of the article as far as what seems needed.

Although the article is well organized and follows a logical order, it may benefit from combining the early life and marriage section with the rape section to provide a more concise explanation of the story of Lucretia. There also is not really any information about her early life so at the least you could consider changing this section just to marriage rather than early life and marriage.

Other than this I agree that there are plenty of sources and they are used well and explanations of their differences assist in keeping this article neutral. Even the small wording changes that you made help with the neutrality of the article as well as the addition of some sources. I also agree that you could benefit from more diversity in your sources but as this article was already full of content, the sources that are there already cover a broad array of the available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XAgememnonX (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)