User:CarlyBach/Bath curse tablets/Mmilne15 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

CarlyBach

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:CarlyBach/Bath curse tablets
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Bath curse tablets

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi Carly,

I really enjoyed reading your draft! I think that the article covers all the possible areas of information, and I particularly like the sections that you've created ('Creating/Commissioning' and 'The Binding Ritual') - these are both really interesting and would definitely be great additions. I agree that information regarding the commission of the tablets is missing from the original article - I found that with mine as well, that the specifics of the worship of Sulis weren't really there and could be added!

I think you've also used great sources, that are both academic and contemporary. I like that you've used material from Barry Cunliffe, as I see from the page that he was one of the original excavators.

I have some very small suggestions, which I'll list below - feel free to take or leave them at your own discretion!

As far as the parts of the article that others had previously edited:

- I think the introduction gives a good summary, but perhaps as it's directed at a more general audience, the wording could be changed to be slightly less academic? I'm mostly referring to "The tablets invoke the intercession of" - but this would also be fine left as is!

- I noticed a small typo in someone else's work under 'Content', where it states "the complained of thefts".

- Another small possible edit - it might be 'Roman-era' instead of 'Roman era', but I could be wrong!

Regarding your contributions:

- I liked your addition under 'Discovery and Description' pertaining to the construction which revealed the artifacts. I definitely agree with your statement "The several findings at the spring highlight what Sulis Minerva meant to the people here", but I was wondering if you could maybe expand on that, regarding the artifacts and her connection to them/the people?

- Under 'Content', I really liked the way you worded that the tablets were like a form of communication with the goddess, I think that's a cool way of thinking about it. Just as far as a small edit, maybe a comma could be added after "Once created"; and "Goddess" could be "goddess" instead - but that's super nit-picky, and the contribution is great!

- Lastly, under 'Examples', you state that some tablets seek other forms of justice, I was thinking maybe you could provide a brief summary of what those were? Although, the list of examples underneath sort of provides evidence of that already, so that might be fine as is too!

I think you've done a really great job of researching and contributing to the article! I'm excited to see the finished product, especially the sections that you've added.

All the best,

Marina