User:Caligulaforprez2024/Roman concrete/GenevieveHis313 Peer Review

Peer review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Caligulaforprez2024
Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Caligulaforprez2024/Roman concrete

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but the lead is already very detailed
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise but still packs in the crucial info for an introduction to the concept

Lead evaluation

The lead for Roman Concrete is very detailed and easy to read. You could add something about the recipe in it if you wanted to.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content added up-to-date? yes and no. You add a source saying the recipe for Roman Concrete was lost, but there are several recent sources saying that they found out the secret ingredient was seawater. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-05/scientists-uncover-ancient-roman-concrete-secret/8679650 im not sure if this is a good enough reference but it is a start.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? same comment as before ^
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation

I like the content you add because you focus on adding pictures and other info which I believe can help people form a better picture on how concrete was used in Rome.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it is all very neutral
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. It is all information based.

Tone and balance evaluation

You have a very balanced tone and it works well for your sandbox additions to the article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources are from good sites
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, the sources have a lot of info that go into further detail
Are the sources current? Yes, they were from 2006 or newer which is fairly current
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? You have three sources and they are all very different from each other and they work well to add onto your point.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they all work

Sources and references evaluation

The only thing I would add is updated info on the recipe because I believe they had thought they found the secret was seawater.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, absolutely
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I'm not exactly sure where you're planning on putting the written bits. I could see putting them with the "historic refrences" section because your information fits that the best.

Organization evaluation

I know it's the sandbox but specifying which section you plan on adding your info to could help a bit.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
Are images well-captioned? Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No? File:Wooden framework.gif this file came up with potential problems.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. They look very nice and match the information

Images and media evaluation

I dont know about the links the pictures should or shouldn't have? But when I clicked on the file for the breakwaters (the second picture), Wikipedia had a box saying that the copyright info was unknown so you could potentially have issues there.

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? N/A
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
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? N/A
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is definitely more complete. You add some good info and your information was, as far as I could see, the only one that mentioned the recipe. Other than the possibility of the recipe maybe being found I like what you have added.
What are the strengths of the content added? You help give a better picture of what the concrete was used for and how it still survives today
How can the content added be improved? You could possible add more links to back up your information. And maybe double check the recipe. And also double check on the one image copyright that I mentioned above.

Overall evaluation

You do a good job expanding on an article that already has a lot of information. Checking out the sources and copyrights are my only things of note. I look forward to seeing how you finalize your sandbox and article.