User:UhOhSpaghettio378/Twelve Tables/AgardW40 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- I am reviewing UhOhSpaghettio378's article on the Twelve Tables. (I absolutely love the username by the way).
- User:UhOhSpaghettio378/Twelve Tables
Lead
[edit]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
[edit]Although there is no new information added to the lead, I think the lead is fairly good to begin with. The intro sentence sums up what the article's topic is about, it includes what information will be discussed, and it is fairly concise and not too overly detailed. Possibly one thing that could be added to the lead is a sentence or two about its legacy and how it is perceived to this day. Overall the lead is very good.
Content
[edit]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
[edit]The second section under drafting and development is quite good and sums it up pretty well, so I can see why you didn't add any more information there. Under Tables 1 and 2, I like how you added the defendant and plaintiff links, as well as updating the source which is quite good. The addition of Table 4 is great, because the article just did not make sense without its inclusion, although there is one grammatical error in it, but otherwise it's good. Also, I like the additions of Tables 7, 8, and 9, as it fully covers the all of the Tables, instead of leaving some empty, and fills all the content gaps. In Table 8, it might be a good idea to add a link to Ceres whom you mention, in case the reader wants to learn more about her. Overall, very good and necessary additions made to the article, and to the most crucial part as well.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]The content added does indeed appear to be neutral, and there does not seem to be any bias towards a position. The tone is good as well, and it is clear they are not trying to attempt to persuade the reader. There is only one single source used though, so it might be wise to add more if possible to further the discussion in the article and not rely solely on one author. Other than that, I don't see any issues with the tone or neutrality, but the balance of the information is relying heavily on the authorship of one source.
Sources and References
[edit]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
[edit]The source that is used does in fact seems to be a good source, with a working link, and that has very good information. It is a current source and very reliable. However, if it is possible to find any other sources on the explanation of the Twelve Tables, that would be great, as well as helpful to the overall quality of the article, rather than solely relying on one source to do all the heavy lifting.
Organization
[edit]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
[edit]The organization of the content added is very good, clear, and easy to read. I'm sure that when they put together all of their added info with the original document, they will restructure it to go in numerical order and fit in the numbers where they should go. The content does have a few grammatical errors here and there, but nothing so major that it can't be easily fixed. The content added is well-organized and I really like how they added in the section heads of the Table numbers. Overall, the organization is very good.
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]Overall, the quality of information added is very good. It adds content that the original article did not have, such as information on certain Table numbers. There are a few grammatical errors here and there, but nothing too serious that can't be fixed easily. One suggestion would be that if there are any additional sources out there about the Twelve Tables, it would be a significant boost, as having only one source for the new content hampers the balance of the article. The addition of a picture of the Twelve Tables or something of the sort, might be a good idea too, if there are any good ones out there, as it can add to the relevance of the article. Overall, I think they did a very good job, and added significant information where it was lacking in the original article.