Talk:Arezzo 1465 vase

What you have so far in the introductory paragraph is good and makes it clear what the rest of the article is going to be about. I agree with your note to add in size, significance, discovery, inscriptions, etc. I might consider creating a description section where you go into more of those topics though so that the lead section doesn't become too long or detailed.

In the General Depictions section, I think you did a good job giving an overview of the different regions of the krater and describing not only what the scenes depict, but also providing definitions of what those scenes are. In the general section, you might want to also talk about how the vase is divided into different zones, so that you can mention the geometric regions of the vase as well even if it's just brief since they aren't as related to warfare.

For the Warfare Depictions section, you did a good job of relating the object back to our group warfare theme, but I think the section as a whole was a little redundant of the general depictions section. Also, I would probably shy away from using the parentheses and "etc." and instead try to incorporate those into the actual sentences of that section since they include important information about the warfare aspect of the vase and would differentiate this section more from the general one. Finally, there are no citations in this section so make sure you attribute the information to the sources you got it from.

Generally speaking, I think it would also be beneficial to add some more images to the article. I would suggest some closer up images of specific scenes on the vase or maybe a map of the region where the vase was made/found. I would also add some links to other Wikipedia articles for things like Etruria, Euphronios, krater, and the museum where it's located.

Finally, I'm sure you're already planning on doing this, but just make sure you update your references so that they are formatted as actual citations rather than just a link and your description of what the source is before you actually create your article. Overall though, I think your draft is strong and most of the changes aren't that major! Samanthaherr (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Review
Hi Sydney!

Great Article so far! The only major problem that I see is the lack of citations in your "Warfare" section, especially in the part where you say that a komos was generally used to celebrate victorious athletes. Your source does say it was used for that, but it also says that a komos could indicate lots of different things. It's basically just the ancient Greek word for "party."

Anyways, keep up the good work!

Robert Y. Rob6820 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Prof. Paga
Hi Sydney - this is a good start! You've already got some solid comments from your peer-reviewer and TF, and I encourage you to answer/address their points. Here are a few suggestions of my own. Jpaga (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Add in hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles (ex: krater, Late Archaic period, Amazons). This will help integrate your article into Wikipedia.
 * Add a section on the top called "Description" where you detail the measurements, etc. Don't add those things to the first (lead) paragraph, but create a new section.
 * Make sure to integrate your scholarly sources throughout, and especially in the final section. It's clear you've done more research than just looking at a couple websites, so make sure to create a "sources" section and cite these scholars in the article itself.