User talk:Bregresch/Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Mocseny3 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead section: The lead section is concise. It is only one sentence, and an additional sentence detailing what Dionysius wrote might pull the article together since so much of the page is dedicated to his writing. The sentence that is there is good - the comma after "rhetoric" seems unnecessary, but the rest looks solid.
 * 2) Clarity of article structure: Cleaning up the 'Institutions' and 'Sabine Women and the Death of Romulus' sections, as you have outlined, is a good idea which will improve article structure. Deleting gratuitous commas and fixing grammar/punctuation, as you also plan to do, will make the article far clearer. It may also be worth considering placing the 'History in the Roman Antiquities and the Foundation Myth' section under 'Works.' This would affirm to readers that it is part of Dionysius's work and not separate from it. The original 'Works' section, the heaviest part of the article, is also dense and a bit disorganized.
 * 3) Coverage balance: There is heavy coverage of Dionysius's work, which is good. Nothing seems especially off-topic. No particular viewpoints seem to be missing and there is no push to accept anyone's point of view. Yet, as previously stated, the works section is heavy, and not much is said about Dionysius's life. More balance could be added there.
 * 4) Content neutrality: All content on the page and in your revisions seems neutral and objective. There is no non-neutral language and no strong claims are made on anyone's behalf. There is not any language that seems to point toward a negative or positive opinion.
 * 5) Sources: Sources listed are reliable and contribute significantly to the article, but more could be added.

peer review
Lead

I like how you made the section of the lead edited more concise, You may be able to talk about how broad an influence he had amongst authors.

Romulus and Remus

Leading with the authors he is citing and having them linked is effective for giving context. You could possibly add an explanation of how these authors interpretations of the story differed if that is available. clarifying that this is a specifically roman origin story could help with readability in this section.

Tone and Balance

This section of the article has an effective neutral tone. It could use more discussion of Dionysius himself and the relation to the story if available, or discussion of the other versions mentioned.

Organization

Given the subject of the article, I'm also not sure if this section needs to be broken into subsections necessarily.

Overall

These edits made to this section are a good contribution to the overall article, and could benefit from some additional detail is the same balanced Tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eumulos (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)