User:Romalicious753/Lucius Tarquinius Priscus/Moonhater99 Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Romalicious753
• User:Romalicious753/Lucius Tarquinius Priscus

Lead

Guiding questions:

• The lead has been updated
• The lead introduces the subject just fine
• The lead is short and does not go into the rest of the article
• The lead does not say anything that is not covered in the article
• The lead is very concise

Lead evaluation

I like how you added the disclaimer at the top that will let people know exactly who the article is about with more information to relevant topics. I think you could add a few more sentences to lead so as to preview some of the other things in the article but there a lot of other improvements so that may not be necessary.

Content

Guiding questions:

• The added content is relevant
• The content is up to date
• All of the content seems relevant
• This does not deal with any equity gaps or underrepresented groups

Content evaluation

I did not see any problems with the content you added, there wasn't anything super groundbreaking but that it totally fine because I understand how hard it can be to find completely new information that hasn't already been in the article

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• The added content is neutral
• I did not find any unbalanced content that you added
• The added content is not trying to convince the reader of anything, it is just stating facts

Tone and balance evaluation

Your tone is professional and the balance is alright. It would be good if you found some perspective from the Etruscans on why they refused peace but I get that it may be impossible to find a source like that

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• You have a ton of good sources
• Your sources are very thorough
• There is a good variety of sources here
• I think your sources are fairly diverse at least as much as they can be for this subject
• Every link I clicked on worked fine

Sources and references evaluation

I am impressed with your sources, I think you have a good range there and it expands upon the article which mostly cited Livy so I think you did a good job there

Organization

Guiding questions:

• It was hard for me to pick out exactly where each of your additions was going to fit into the article but I don't think that is your fault
• There were a few mistakes I noticed
• The content is nicely organized, I think you improved upon how the article already was

Organization evaluation

I did find a few times where you used the wrong word like lobbing instead of lobbying or Roam instead of Rome so just make sure you catch all those and it should be good. I love how you broke up the large section into smaller subsections I think that is a massive improvement

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• The image you added is relevant
• The caption shows up well
• It does adhere to copyright codes

Images and media evaluation

The image you added is good, I think it's a nice piece of art first off, and it is relevant to the subject . I had some trouble getting my caption to show up properly so it's good to see that you did not

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• I think your content and organization has improved the article.
• The organization of the big chunk of text at the end is the biggest improvement
• I would recommend to make sure you catch all spelling/grammar mistakes before publishing but other than that I think you have done really well.

Overall evaluation

You have improved upon the base article a lot, I think your sources are great and your organization is good. I am really sorry it took me so long to get this done.