User:Yusuftaguri/Fishbourne Roman Palace/SadiesC23 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing
 * User:Yusuftaguri


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Yusuftaguri/FishbourneRomanPalace
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fishbourne Roman Palace

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section:

For the lead section it would definitely be a good idea to mention some of the aspects that you have added to the article, just make sure that you're not repeating everything and save the details for the actual sections you added.

Content: Discovery and Excavation

Where it says that the villa was "initially/accidentally discovered," it might be best to choose one word because in simply stating that it was "accidentally discovered in 1805," the reader can assume that it was also originally found at this time.

What you have added in this section of the article is both relevant and seems to be up to date. Covering the excavation of the site in detail is important as it creates context for your readers and provides an understanding of what we can learn from this site.

Since "masonry building" is in quotations, it might be a good idea to add a citation since the quotations imply that you are quoting something from a source.

Content: Destruction and Aftermath

This section, even though not in paragraph form yet seems like an excellent edition to the article.

Content: General

If you have time and the information for it, it would be interesting if you were to create entries based on the different eras when the villa existed and its functions during these periods

Tone and Balance:

Nothing that you have added seems to be biased or trying to prove a specific point.

Sources and References:

Out of the few articles that I could find and look at including Fishbourne Roman Palace Final Interim 1995-99 by John Manly, they seem to be detailed and you have picked out the important details. For your sources, if they are available, please include the websites that you got them from or the DOI, so that they are easier to locate and read.

As previously mentioned, consider adding a citation for "masonry building" since the terms are in quotations

While not all the sources are current, it makes sense that you chose to use them since they are based on excavation files.

The citations should be placed after the punctuation

Organization:

There are a few grammatical errors and confusing sentence structure, some editing is needed

The content that you have added is quite easy to read and is well organized

Some suggestions:


 * make sure that your language can be understood by a general audience

Overall:

Based on your draft so far, you have definitely made meaningful and relevant contributions to this article. By adding the destruction and aftermath section, you are further completing the history of the villa which makes the article a more completed edition to Wikipedia. The main strength of your article so far is the amount of detail that you have put into its history section. I read the original version of the article and your version has added a lot more relevant information that is important for the understanding of the excavation and the contrasting beliefs about the site's history. The only thing that really needs to be pointed out about your article is the bit of editing that needs to be done, and the completion of some ideas. It is an excellent draft so far!