User talk:AloGamora/sandbox/Judith and Her Maidservant (Detroit)

Peer Review
Hi, Jordan! First off, thank you for writing that heading addressed to me so I know your plans for the rest of the article--that was definitely helpful so I can see where you want to take the rest of your revision and writing. I think those would all be great additions, and I especially like your idea to talk about other depictions of Judith in art to include a comparison of those works to the Gentileschi. From the bits you already have written, I can tell you really know your subject and you write extremely well and clear. I found following along to be really understandable, and I didn't have to reread sentences a second time in order to retain what I just read like I usually have to do with Wikipedia articles--awesome job! I totally know this is still a work in progress, but I did think the lead section could use a bit more fleshing out, especially the sentence about the 2001 catalogue that mentions how highly Gentileschi's father thought of this work. Is there any more you can add to that, or is there some place else in the article where you can put that fact? I was thinking that would be better suited for a "Reception" heading/subheading. You for sure have a clear structure laid out and in the works, which is great. Another great strength would be your use of a neutral commentary, as well as all of the sources you've been utilising and the links to other wikipedia articles. Great job on that! The only other critique I would give would just be minor things, such as this sentence from the first sentence of the "Visual Analysis" heading: "Much like her father, Gentileschi's style, or more so in her younger years, followed that of Caravaggio, mirroring his methods of dark shadows and overall execution"; I would personally take out the "...or more so in her younger years" and try to reword the sentence so it isn't so long. Maybe something like: "Gentileschi's style in the formative years of her career followed that of Caravaggio....". It would just keep it a little more neutral and "encylopedia-like" if that makes sense. One last minor change you might consider making; this was in the middle of your "Artistic Focus" heading: "That being said, historians have analyzed Gentileschi's works that emphasize the naked female form, building on the idea that the female artist may have used her own body as a reference in the mirror.". I would take out "that being said" altogether and just leave it as "Historians have etc etc....". But other than that, it looks like you are really doing a great job! Your sources are great, you've got a great layout, and you've already added so much info to the article. Hope these comments helped, feel free to ask for clarification or more explanation on anything I said, and sorry if this rambled haha. Great work!SStevens97 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

reply to SStevens97
Thank you so much for your input. It was very helpful and definitely added to the sophisticated and scholarly aspect of the article. It's nice to have another person read over your sentences because it's very difficult to search for mistakes in your own writing. Also I sometimes get caught up in a repetition of diction and syntax that I just feel like I keep repeating the same style and format, over and over. So your points on switching up a few sentences really helped with that. I also did try to clean up/add tiny things to the intro like you pointed out, but I don't know if it needs something else. Thank you again for your kind words and constructive criticism. It's still a work in progress, but we're getting there. Hope you're having success improving your own article! AloGamora (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)