User:Googoogoo165/Secessio plebis/Tjna57 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Googoogoo165
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Googoogoo165/Secessio plebis

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead section has not been updated; however, the new content added still coincides with the introduction, so it works very well.
• 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? This particular subject matter is dealing more with a single term/phenomenon; therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to have a description of the sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise and informative.

Content

Guiding questions:

• 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? There is no content that feels out of place. However, I wonder if more information can be given regarding the Fourth Secession (although I know that may not be possible given its obscurity).
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article gives attention to notions of class/political tensions (aka Plebeians vs Patricians and the Conflict of the Orders)

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there does not appear to be any heavily biased claims and/or positions.
• 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, the content merely presents the history.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? A mix of current and old works.
• 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? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is a spelling error in the fourth paragraph of The First Secession (the word Negotiating has a tiny typo). Additionally, the word plebeian is misspelled as plebian.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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, but I think the image in the Fifth Secession section might benefit from a date.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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?
• 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? Yes.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Provides more contextual background and information.
• How can the content added be improved? Perhaps expanding on the Fourth Secession (if possible)