User:Jacques Blac/Roman graffiti/Ebullience10 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? (provide username)
  • Jacques Blac
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Jacques Blac/Roman graffiti

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead generally covers the content that was added by my peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The introductory sentence describes what is considered graffiti in archeological terms, which is important to understanding archology. I wonder how you might be able to weave in Rome into this sentence though, so that we know we are talking about Roman graffiti and not just any archeological graffiti.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • This might be a place where a bit more structuring could be done. Maybe you could mention graffiti appearing in different places like Pompeii or the Roman Market in Athens and briefly mention on your key examples for these places. The introduction as it stands now though does a good job of summarizing the variety of Roman graffiti, and why it is important/ how it can help us learn about Roman daily life.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Not anything that I noticed.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is generally concise. I was, however, wondering if you felt the quote of the graffiti was necessary in the into, or if that might be something better described in depth later on in the article? I can see how it might be a logical choice to provide an example early on, but I can also see how maybe the quote/specific nature of it might be better explored later with other examples.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic. Most of the content added appears to be examples of Roman graffiti and what it reflects about daily life.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, it is all coming from pretty up-to-date sources. I can't say that I keep up on the major developments of this topic, but there was nothing that came across as particularly dated to me.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I think that what has been added and written on is covered very well content wise. There are not apparent gaps in what has been added. On the whole, the Games and Riddles section could use some more development, as that seems like a key idea in Roman graffiti. Of course, I realize you have already put a lot into this article and that is not to say you have to write on that.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes and no. In some ways yes, because graffiti is authored by the everyday person rather than someone who was trained in history and rhetoric or was running the empire, so it fills this gap of the common person's perspective. On the other hand, the authors are generally anonymous, so it is hard to tell who exactly wrote these and if they were women, slaves, etc. I know Mary Beard mentions a few example of people who carved their names, so in some cases we do know that what is being said reflects the point of view of a slave, but in the majority cases we don't really know how well this form of writing is filling or not filling an equity gap. The article does address the topic of women in the context of the conversations left on the wall between lovers and again in the context of graffiti as documenting sexual encounters. Most of the examples seem to reflect men or former lovers talking about women.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Overall, the article does a great job of staying neutral. Ideas are expressed as being “popular” or the like, which reflects more a general reaction of a larger historical and academic community than any personal claim. All claims that are made are linked to interpretations by archaeologists. The article also doesn't paint the topic in the best or worse light. It remains pretty neutral and allows readers to decide on the topic for themselves. For instance, one could either be appalled or amused by the Roman’s use of graffiti to documents their sexual encounters after reading this. The text really just provides examples of graffiti and scholars' analysis of how it might be understood.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I think that the article might lean a little towards arguing that graffiti reflects daily life in Rome. But I also think that that the article would feel lacking if there wasn’t this historical conversation about what graffiti could have meant and how we are to understand it in context. This is kind of the "why should I care" element, so I don't know that the article learning towards that is a terrible thing. There is point too that does argue the early archeologists didn't see the value in Roman graffiti, so the opposing viewpoint is in there.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Nothing that is really glaring.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The interpretations of the graffiti that were offered were valid and varied. What I am left being convinced of by the end of the article is that Roman graffiti reveals daily life in Rome and reflects the romantic, sexual, thoughtful, and playful nature of ancient Romans, though there is also  some acknowledgement that early archaeologists didn’t see value in the graffiti as reflecting anything of daily life.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • I think that it is, I just don't know that the citations are quite frequent enough. For instance, is there a source connected to the information in the first paragraph of the house of Maius Castricius? In Ovid’s Heroides 4, is there a source that relates to the end of the paragraph?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • I would say so. The sources cover different geographical locations from Pompeii to Athens, as well as different subject matters such as the calos graffiti and the refence to Ovid.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, I would say so. The oldest source is the movie refence for Life of Brian, which is totally fine. The second oldest source is from 2006, which is only 14 years ago. The other ones are all either at or under the ten year range.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • It seems so. While I did not do any major google searches on the authors, it seems like a balanced group of men and women, with one source even being from an international source.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yep. all of them take me to JSTOR and the article page.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yep, it's clear, concise, and easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There were some places that could use minor rewording to make them flow better. If you read what you have added out loud, I am sure you will find them. One that really tripped me up is the line with quote in the lead section. The quote is inserted in the middle of the sentence and just kind of interrupts the thought in the first clause of the sentence and it's finishing fragment after the quote. Maybe take out the quote all together or rewrite it into two sentences. Also, the last line of the Pompeii section there should be a comma after "however".
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The sections are well organized and well divided up. I like the flow that you have created with the examples, and the outline at the top of the page makes sense. Maybe to make it clearer when reading, rather than have a “Samples” section that has the bulk of your information divided into the subheadings 1 and 2, consider making “Graffiti in Pompeii” its own heading/section and then provide your overview and subhead the examples. I think that maybe making your sections visually stand out more with the headings will help guide your reader more easily through all the great information you have.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

I did not see any images in the original article or in the draft.

• 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 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, I would say that the article is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content added more concrete examples of graffiti in the Roman Empire, and helps show the diversity of daily human life in the Roman Empire from sexual encounters, to romantic love, to thoughts on literature, and even playfulness.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think just some minor edits in what was added, such as making the citations a little more regular.