Talk:Fasti Ostienses

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JLee916. Peer reviewers: Samlederman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Background
"Although the fragments of the Fasti Ostienses date over the span of two centuries, only three months of the inscriptions were comprehensible." -- This doesn't make sense. While the Fasti Ostienses is lacunose, far more than "three months" of this inscription is readable. I've read this primary source, & can attest to that fact. For example, the portion listing the consuls from AD 14 to 20 is complete, & was the subject of an article by a renouned Classicist, Ronald Syme -- "The Early Tiberian Consuls", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 30 (1981), pp. 189-202. To be honest if this wasn't the subject of a class assignment, since I can't evaluate the source cited, I'd remove these contributions & re-write it based on my own familiarity with the document. -- llywrch (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sam's Peer review
Things I've notices upon first reading
 * In the first passage, it is not necessary to note that Ostia was a harbor town on the mouth of the Tiber. It adds nothing regarding the fasti
 * You should hyperlink 'calendar' to the calendar page.
 * Also hyperlink threshold
 * 'Context of early Ostia' is not a clean title for a section, not only because it assumes that the reader knows what is being put into context, but it also possibly implied the section is solely about Ostia. "Ostian Origins of the Fasti" would work
 * Also, the entire Ostia section is redundant, the point is to present relevant information in an accessible way, not all information in a detailed way.
 * 'Description' will not do as a title.
 * You mix up your tenses. Was the fasti a fragmentary calendar or is the fasti a fragmentary calendar. Consistency on this is imperative.
 * You use the word 'suprising' and 'unique identity'. You cannot use either, they are subjective.
 * Other words you can't use 'valuable' (unless you have a source specifically stating its value). The last sentence of the first paragraph of 'Description' is highly subjective.
 * 'Contents' covers everything said in 'Descriptions' but better and more concisely.
 * Romulus is called 'Rome's first legendary king'. I have no idea what a 'legendary king of Rome' is because its not hyperlinked.
 * The rest is ok.

Review

Many portions of this article could be removed wholesale. 'Description' and 'Context of early Ostia' are redundant as Descriptions is covered better in 'Content' and 'Context' is not relevant. Get rid of complex sentences that are in any way subjective or even hint at a mood or tone. Just the facts delivered uncompromised by excessive prose.

But this is better than most articles, and you have a good subject that can be expanded upon. Good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlederman (talk • contribs) 04:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)