User:Yusuftaguri/sandbox

Initial Evaluation:
The introductory sentence does not provide a fruitful overview of the articles subject, while the lead section is lacking a description of the main topics. The "sitting" section of the article contains a disproportionate amount of information in comparison to the other sections of the article. Furthermore, I would have appreciated the incorporation of some more minute details, for instance, one particular section mentions the fact that "the gardens were re-planted using authentic plants from the Roman period". What kind of authentic Roman plants were incorporated? I had instantly noticed some verb-tense errors throughout the article as well some poor sentence structures, making some sections more difficult to read in a concise manner. The manner in which dates are mentioned seems to be inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles or scholarly articles in general (ex. "in the AD 60s" rather than in the 1st century CE or 60 CE). Language used in sections such as "foreign, probably Italian, craftsmen had to be employed", seems as if this fact is not proven (also is not followed by a citation). Furthermore language such as "the palace included as many as 50 excellent mosaic floors" does not appear to be neutral. The captions of the pictures throughout the article could be more specific. There is also a disproportionate amount of pictures in the "history and description" section, which appears to be cluttered with pictures.

Note from the Roman Palace at Fishbourne:
This article discusses the discovery of a figurine during a 1992 excavation of the site. It attempts to analyze the figure in hopes of unraveling greater narratives surrounding the religious beliefs of the inhabitant at the Fishbourne Palace.