User:Tjna57/Lucretia/Googoogoo165 Peer Review

Peer review

Hello! I've put my peer review thoughts in the indented bullet points under the guiding questions.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, the lead has been updated by slimming it down slightly and making it more concise.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it does. The introductory sentence is concise and clear.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, the article could benefit from mention from a brief description of the article's major sections with slightly more focus on Lucretia herself. The Lead almost entirely focuses on Lucretia's rape, an event of historial significance.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- While the editor got a good start on tackling this issue, the lead is still slightly overly detailed regarding what different sources thought about the legend of her rape and how it contributed to the overthrow of the roman kingdom, while lacking on content about Lucretia herself. Some of it would be better suited for one of the body paragraphs.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Most of the content added is indeed relevant to the topic. The article could benefit from connecting the "revolution" body paragraphs a bit more closely to Lucretia... as a main article already exists to describe the specifics of the revolution that did not related to Lucretia at all.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- The content added is up-to-date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There are no real content gaps, but the "revolution" content could be more concisely connected to the topic of the article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- This article does indeed deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but does a good job of examining all available sources about the topic.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, the content added is neutral. It examines multiple different sources and presents information from each of them when they conflict.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There are not any claims that appear heavily biased in any way.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Viewpoints of male Roman historians are overrepresented, but the article cannot avoid this, as nearly all availible information about the article topic is from those sources.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- The content added does not seek to persuade the reader.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- The content is indeed backed up by a mix of reliable first and seconary sources of information.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources are thorough. They repersent a variety of different literature and accounts of the topic.
Are the sources current?
- The sources are relatively current.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- The sources are not written by a hugely diverse spectrum of authors. Could possbily benefit from more diversity, depending on what's availiable. The existing sources cover the article well, however.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- For the most part, yes. Some parts are not very clear in how they connect to the topic of the page.
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?
- Yes, the organization of the content is effective and logical.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, the article has plenty of images that enhance understanding of the topic. It could be benifical to pick and keep the most effective ones, as some seem slightly redunant in their depictions of events surrounding Lucrecia's life.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes. Captions such as "Here citizens with swords are swearing the overthrow of the monarchy." are helpful in understand content from the images.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Not exactly. An overabundance of images crowds the right side of the page a bit. Could benefit from slimming down the number of images on the page.

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, the article feels a bit more complete.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- The added content examines multiple sources more closely, and adds some useful content to some of the more underdeveloped body paragraphs.
How can the content added be improved?
- The article could benefit from slimming down the lead and giving it a more rounded look at all the content of the article instead of mostly focusing on her rape; explanding the early life and marriage section with commentary and not just mostly primary source facts would likely give greater context to her life and death. There are a few areas in the article that need additional sources as well - mostly places noted by [Add source here].