User:Tjna57/Lucretia/XAgememnonX 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?
  • Tjna57
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Tjna57/Lucretia

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes
• 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?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise, it could even be more so in some instances.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, mostly citation changes and additions.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The original article did not leave much room for improvement and fixing wording/adding and changing citations is a great way to help build an already detailed article.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, one of the additions changed an opinionated statement to make it more neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• 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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, addition of new citations is good.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • They do not necessarily represent marginalized individuals but they do represent a good portion of available sources.
• 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?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes. One thing that could be considered is changing the early life and rape sections to be one and the same giving more of an overview of the entirety of the story. It seems almost as if those two sections are broken up just to fill extra space rather than give a clear and concise narrative which this article could benefit from with all of the other information being much more complete.

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?
  • Some are, but some could use more accessibility meaning they could have descriptions of what is going on as well as the citation.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • I believe so.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, although having only one on the left side is a little odd. Maybe changing the position of some or moving the single stand alone to the right would be good for visual organization.

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?
  • Citations are always important not only to prevent plagiarism but also to guide other's understanding of the topic. Also making the wording more clear helps in a similar way as well as changing opinionated statements.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • A reorganization of the early life/rape sections into more of a clear and linear story of Lucretia could help this part of the article be more concise.

Overall evaluation

It would definitely be hard to work on an article that already has so much information and imagery, so well done. As has already been stated the early life/rape sections could be combined but as they stand right now they are already decent. However, to a reader that did not know the story it is fine as is but would feel more linear and clear if they were combined. I don't know if her life slightly before she was raped even counts as early life so even just changing it to marriage or mentioning that we do not know as much about her early life would help.