User talk:Cstepis2/sandbox

Article evaluation
Roman Baths

Introduction is thorough yet informative of the topic. Very detailed accounts of the history of the bath house. They include many sources and links throughout the article. All the information was relevant. Including the mentioning of how they work(ed) to conserve the bath house and the safety of the water. No biased viewpoints. Citations all appear to be functional and relevant to the topic they address. Article is rated as good. Cstepis2 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof McClanan
Chandrine, You’ve pulled together a truly impressive amount of research on your topic and also are clearly a quick study when it comes to mastering the conventions of a new context for your writing in Wikipedia. Here are some elements to consider as you revise: Overall you are adept at assessing what’s relevant for your specific entry, but the two categories, History of Roman Catacombs and Variability of Catacomb Art, unfortunately should probably be omitted—they overlap too much with other Wikipedia entries that give a big picture look at Roman catacombs

Should the subhead “Marcellinus and Peter Catacomb” be renamed? It seems like it offers a continuation of the general overview at the very beginning

A picayune mechanical fix is to hyphenate “fourth-century catacomb”

For the section, “Significance of the Catacomb's Art” : The parts general to catacombs should maybe be culled, and then the parts connected with understanding Jonah, for instance, as a popular theme in catacomb imagery might work better under the Jonah sub-head

The Jonah section is richly detailed, but would be augmented by another picture or two since it’s such an expanded cycle of his story

The last two sections seem closely related in content and as you revise you might organize this material as one section with separate paragraphs to reflect different aspects of the archeology/skeleton angle

Your research looks extensive and scholarly, well done! AMcClanan (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof McClanan, 12/7
The entry makes a clear and informative contribution to Wikipedia. I added a few more links, and there are a few minor adjustments you could continue to make (replacing the website ref.) but overall this is very good work.

AMcClanan (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)