User talk:AncientWeapons/tullus hostilius sandbox

Instructor Comments on Peer Review/Draft 2
RunaBellona thanks for your review. I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the lack of detail, given the really superb review you gave last round! You give good suggestions overall, but I think your peer could have benefited from the critical eye you provided last time. Grade: 12/15

AncientWeapons first and foremost a reminder to add your response to Peer Review # 2 (from my email on March 17): By tomorrow, March 18 (ideally, but let me know if you can't for whatever reason): 1) Respond to your 2nd peer review in your sandbox talk page (10 points). Make all proofreading, grammatical, spelling, and structural changes (I see you did some of these). Make revisions if you have time, but in addition to the changes listed above, you must at acknowledge that you have seen the 2nd peer reviewer's suggestions, and write a brief sentence or two explaining what you will add to your article for the final draft and how your final article will be improved. You are currently losing marks for this, so please do it ASAP!

AncientWeapons You've done a good job with the history and myth sections, and are well on your way to the final draft of this page. However, there are still a few areas that you need to address, particularly with regard to the content. First, your lead should be short and summarize the info found in the article - the sentence that begins 'The famous battle for Alba Longa...' is more like content than the lead. You should take this out of the lead and combine it with the 'Betrayal' section - maybe under a larger section called 'The Battle for Alba Longa', and then the betrayal of Fuffetius can be a subsection of that. Essentially, no section should ever start with 'however', as yours does. You also mention the same battle lower down, in your history section. Again, all this organization needs to be addressed. Perhaps the first section should be called 'Historical Events', and the first sub section of that could be 'The Battle for Alba Longa' (with a subsection on the betrayal) and the section section under 'Historical Events' should be 'The Construction of the Senate House'. If that doesn't make sense, please let me know and we can chat about it. What I want you to do from here on out is similar to my earlier recommendations (below): proofread and organize. Pretend you are a visitor to the site and have never read about Tullus Hostilius - does the page make sense? Are the sentences clear? Be extremely critical of your own work here! (For example, the first sentence you added, "At the end of reign, there was a plague, in which Tullis Hostilius was a victim of it, thus ended the third king of Rome" doesn't make any sense. Rephrase for clarity and say exactly what you mean to say as simply and in as straightforward a manner as possible). Don't get discouraged, you're doing a great job and I want you to keep up the hard work! Grade: 13/15

Peer Review #2
Hello AncientWeapons, I am doing your second peer review. I found very little to critic in your contributions but there are some things that could possibly be added or changed. First to note, I loved that you re-organised the sections suggested in your first peer review, they were quite fluid and easy to read now. The article appears to fall in line with the neutral rule. In the very first section labelled Tullus Hostilius, I wanted to suggest that you changed the word "single" to "singled" as in "these triplets were singled out". I do believe that is the only misspelled word I found. In other sections such as The Betrayal of Mettius Fufetius, History, and Death of Tullus Hostilius, I believe it might benefit the article better to add more in-text citations at the ends of sentences. As for citations already there, I believe these benefit the article quite nicely. Your sources and links to them all seem in order and work quite well. I'd perhaps change the title of "Death of Tullus Hostilius" to "The Death of Tullus Hostilius". In the section on "Myth", I think it would benefit the article to add a citation at the end of your sentence "Tullus Hostilius defeating the army of Veii and Fidenae, modern fresco". I'd maybe suggest trying to find an image or two to add to the page as I believe that it would benefit from it.

Overall, I thought this article was quite interesting to read and helped me to better understand more about Tullus Hostilius. The article was well written and really only needs a few changes.

Thank you, and good luck with your final draft! --RunaBellona (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)RunaBellona

Instructor Comments Draft/Peer Review 1
RachelKWalsh thanks for your review. All of your suggestions are spot-on, but I would have liked to see you give some concrete examples of how your peer might improve some of their sentences for clarity. For your next peer review, make sure to elaborate on specific sentences/words for improvement, which will help your peer incorporate your suggestions. Grade: 15/20 Gardneca (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

AncientWeapons your peer reviewer is absolutely right in suggesting that your work needs to be more clear, and needs to flow with the work around it. This entire entry needs attention so that it flows more smoothly and reads like an encyclopedia entry; this means a lot of attention to organization on your part - always keep the question in mind "would this page make sense to someone reading who had no knowledge of the subject"? Right now it's a bit confusing, but I'm sure this was something that was already on your radar to keep working on over the next week. Remember, the entire page needs to be presented as a coherent whole. So, for this week work on: organization, clarity, and adding content. Grade: 10/20 (15/20, -5 per day late). Gardneca (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
The all information is relevant to the article, but the paragraph about the triplets needs to be edited for clarity/easier reading, and more needs added about Tullus's involvment in the battle and the myth. It is relevant to the topic but the way it is written is distracting. It might fit better in another section, e.g. the Myth and history section where it does mention the battle of Alba Longa in the second paragraph.

No bia's are present in the article and it stays neutral throughout. It recognizes both sides of the history and myth behind Tullus equally.

The two citation links work and they support the information added, but another source could be used to further support it instead of drawing from one or the other. Possibly a source later than the two used,(1990 and 2015).

Overall it is a good article and interesting to read, it just needs adjustments for clarity and organization. Let me know if you want me to further expalin anything I have suggested!

RachelKWalsh (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)User:RachelKWalsh

Annotated Bibliography
AncientWeapons this is not an annotated bibliography, this is just a list of sources. The sheet you handed in in class is also just this list, replicated, without the additional information about what you intend to add from each source. This portion of the assignment is, therefore, incomplete. You may hand in a completed annotated bibliography for additional marks. Grade: 2/10. Gardneca (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

AncientWeapons make sure to fix the date values in your citation (the red text)! Gardneca (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes made after Peer Review
Changed Myth and History Paragraph into two separate paragraphs. Added more citations and clarified the information, will finalise other changes or additions after next peer review.AncientWeapons (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ready for Next peer review
I am ready for my next peer review, both of my article and another person's article.AncientWeapons (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Training due March 22, 2020
Installed a image of a sculpture of Tullius Hostilius in the Article. Added two hyperlinks in sandbox editing of article. One under Numa Pompilius and another under Rome. AncientWeapons (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

AncientWeapons good work, and keep adding hyperlinks on your final draft! Gardneca (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 Response
I have incorporated more citations at the end of some sentences. I changed the word single to singled. I have also added a image, hyperlinks and continue to do your recommendations. Thank-you for the information, it was very helpful. If I have missed any refinements, I will include them in my final draft before I move it to the original article. Thank-you again.AncientWeapons (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Article completion and ready for marking
Hi Professor Gardner: My article is now ready for marking. Most of peer suggestions have been incorporated.AncientWeapons (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you for Assistance with this Article
I would like to thank Rachel for peer reviewing my sandbox article before moving to original article. I would alsoAncientWeapons (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC) like to thank Professor Gardner for all her non bias opinions and suggestions to improve this article. And to the staff at Wikipedia I would to thank also. And anyone else that I have missed, Thank-you.

Corrections Made to Article
Professor Gardner I have instilled most of the changes that were mentioned in your evaluation and the peer evaluation also. So now I feel my article can be marked. I can't think of any other information to add at this time. I would like to thank-you and Rachel for the evaluations that both of you did.AncientWeapons (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)