User talk:SPhilSmit/sandbox

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 2

AbbSe37 thanks for your review! You give really good advice to your peer, especially noting that they should be paraphrasing. You also caught a lot of typos, which is very helpful. I would have liked to hear your thoughts on the content overall, and what you enjoyed/what doesn't work or needs improvement. Overall, good job! Grade: 12/15

SPhilSmit I think there was a bit of confusion in your sandbox, since you had two versions of your draft there (1 and 2), but in the most recent draft, there were none of the original citations from the first draft. This is likely what resulted in your peer reviewer commenting several times about the citations, and I agree that it was hard to tell what was going on. Moreover, I didn't see many of the changes incorporated from the first round of edits (below) - specifically the consolidation of the citations (Gorski!!), capitalization (which both your reviewers mentioned), fonts, and run-on sentences. At this point, since we're in the final weeks of the project, your sandbox should look like an actual Wikipedia article: 1) take out the annotated biblio, etc. (you can add them to your talk page if you like, but even if you delete them Wikipedia will keep a history of that edit); 2) once you have incorporated all your peer reviewer's changes (oh, and it's archaeologists, not archeologists), you can remove their text too; 3) make sure everything is organized into the headings you want, using the headings drop-down bar at the top. Then, keep adding content, revising, revising, and adding content! Read all your sentences out loud, get a second opinion, and proofread! What are your goals for the final weeks of this project? Grade: 10/15 Gardneca (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 1

Jmorley89 I'm having a really difficult time understanding the changes you suggested below - the attached document has very odd formatting and it's not clear to me what you've done. I don't want you to lose marks on the peer review, but I can't grade your contributions until I can understand what you've changed/added suggested. Can you please post your changes here in the user's sandbox, or update your file? Don't worry, this won't be counted as late, but please add this info ASAP. Thank you! Gardneca (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Updated to add: Thanks for the comments, Jmorley89, these are all really excellent suggestions but overall your feedback is lacking detail. For example, what terms stood out to you as needing clarification? Which sentences were run-on or incomplete? This sort of specific detail can be really helpful for a peer in improving their content. For the next round of edits I want you to work on digging deeper and providing richer feedback so that you and your peer are then working together to make these pages the best they can be. Grade: 16/20 Gardneca (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SPhilSmit I'll wait until I can see your peer's comments before I add any additional suggestions, but it's clear you've done a formidable job with your draft so far. You've added a really impressive amount of content that only needs minimal editing/proofreading. The one thing I will say is that you need to make sure to consolidate your citations (for example, all the Frazer citations should appear together in one reference, same with the Gorski, etc.) - I can show you how to do this, but it essentially means you should be 're-using' citations instead of 'adding new' citations. More to come after I see the extent of the peer review. Grade: 20/20 Gardneca (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Updated to add: SPhilSmit please take your peer's suggestions into consideration, particularly with regard to capitalization consistency and font usage (although I suspect this would have been something you fixed in a later draft). You'll have an opportunity to add hyperlinks during a future training, so just keep on adding content and improving this page. Gardneca (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer-review

The article looks good, just a few edits here and there. Your sources are good and you have added some good information that was not seen in the original article. Here are a few tips to make your article look great:

- Make sure names are capitalized. (i.e. Vesta)

- Use terms the everyday Wikipedia user understands.

- Be careful of run-on sentences and make sure all sentences are complete.

- Possibly link to ancient Roman homes/huts so that people understand the link between the round footprint of the temple and the Roman home.

- Link to the Via Sacra wiki page

- Again, be careful of run-on sentences

- Make sure that all of your fonts match.

You're doing great so far! Keep up the good work. Jmorley89 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

SPhilSmit, great work so far. I think you've found some very good sources and it's clear how you will improve this article, especially in terms of the life of the physical temple itself, as well as the existence of the people who used it. I'm really excited about your topic because it's one of the few archaeological topics in the class. Good job! Grade: 10/10 Gardneca (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources you should look at in terms of more recent investigations into the building itself (that aren't in Italian):

• Scott, R. T. (Ed.). (2009). Excavations in the area sacra of Vesta (1987-1996) (Vol. 8). University of Michigan Press.
• Carettoni, G. (1960). Excavations and Discoveries in the Forum Romanum and on the Palatine during the Last Fifty Years. The Journal of Roman Studies, 50(1-2), 192-203.

Peer Review 2

Hello! I completed your peer review. I did it yesterday, but I forgot to leave a note on your talk page, so I am sorry about that. --AbbSe37 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)