User:Racheldeible/Disease in Imperial Rome/Fire lily445 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)
  • Racheldeible
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • No draft available, reviewing article instead: Disease in Imperial Rome

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No, no updates to the lead
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The introductory sentence is short and general. It would benefit from expanding to a greater scope to encompass more of the topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It does not. Sections missing from the lead include: Causes and Diseases
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Neither -- the lead has unnecessary details at parts, but otherwise lacks sufficient detail or scope to give an overview of the subject.

Lead evaluation

The lead needs to be improved, starting with a new introductory sentence that summarizes more about the subject. The lead should also be improved by adding mention to more sections of the article. Finally, it can be improved by removing unnecessary detail such as the quote of physician Galen, and replacing it with more relevant information such as causes of disease and types of disease.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, all content is relevant to the topic. However, too much detail is given on living conditions and sewage systems in imperial Rome. It overshadows and shifts focus from the diseases themselves.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The section on Air Pollution should be moved into the Causes category, rather than the Diseases category. The content under Respiratory Disease similary is more appropriately put under the Causes heading. Furthermore, content under respiratory disease is under-developed. Could also add a subject labelled "Impacts."
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No, the article deals with Imperial Rome, certainly not an under represented entity. However, the poor who were largely affected by these disease are a typically marginalized part of society.

Content evaluation

The content should be reorganized and cleaned up to remove distracting or unnecessary details. Certain topics would benefit from further development, including more on respiratory illnesses. The section on treatments would be an excellent place to add content.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes all content is neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, all claims are evenly weighed and where there is contention, both viewpoints are listed
• 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

Tone and balance evaluation

I see no changes or improvements that need to be made to the tone or balance of the content.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, there are numerous sources and citations
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Very much so -- an excellent amount of sources on a variety of topics. About 30 total.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the majority of sources are from the years 2000-2020, with the oldest source being from 1991.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • The sources come from a variety of articles and journals.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, all four links that I tried work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content is well written, although the style and organization at parts could be improved
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I only noticed one error near the beginning, which is more of a stylistic preference, in adding a comma to make the sentence more clear.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • It is well organized in concept, however the content under current headings is sometimes mis-categorized.

Organization evaluation

Excellent blueprint for organization, going from Causes, to Diseases, to Treatments. Could also use another subject under "impacts"."

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No, there are zero images in this article at it is a major weakness.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • N/A

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?
  • No content has yet been added
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • N/A
• How can the content added be improved?
  • N/A

Overall evaluation

My overall impression is that there is a frame-work for a very solid article here, but much needs to be added or reorganized to make it an excellent article. The lead section needs a new and stronger introduction -- one that encompasses more of the topic. In addition, the lead as it stands now does a poor job adequately outlining the topic and how it will be discussed in the article. The content is generally very good. However, there is an over-emphasis on the sewage conditions of Rome which should be addressed by either adding more content on the diseases themselves or by trimming this information down. Also, the content is sometimes misplaced or spread too thin throughout the article. It would be better to move certain information into its respective category for clarity and organization's sake. The content under "Treatments" is underdeveloped. It would improve the article and add to its completeness to add content here. Lastly, the lack of any visual material is a severe weakness of the article. I recommend adding this content, such as a map of the old Roman city, or pictures of Galen's medical journals.