User talk:DonatelliaAustin/sandbox

Alissa's Peer Review
DonatelliaAustin’s contribution on the Temple of Bacchus: It seemed like the user mostly focused their time on improving the “Architecture” section. I liked the information that it offered, and I thought it was pretty well organized. The section of the article starts with more logistical information, such as dimensions of columns and the current existence of the temple. Then there’s a brief section describing the sculpting and decorative aspects on the temple. The last paragraph deals with preservation related information and some natural disasters that have affected the site. The information on this section is good and obviously objective, and it seems like there are sources to back it up. Although, twice in the first paragraph of the architecture section it says (SEGAL) and I am wondering if that is supposed to be a cited source for some of the content. I also think the last paragraph could have a different heading or section such as “Preservation” to make it a little more organized. I think overall the article could use more fleshing out as far as what the temples intended use, since it seems like most of the information is about pretty modern occurrences. It seems some good strides have been made on this article!

Alissacasey (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Margaret's Peer Review
You cleaned up the sections about the Architecture and the International Baalbek Festival nicely, though I am noticing some grammar issues in the lead section and the history section that I think would have been a quick and easy fix that would have been nice to see happen while you were editing. Your sources look good, and like they are solid scholarly sources. The only thing I want to comment on about the sources is that two of them (notes #9 and #10) are only accessible if you are a student/part of a university, so the general public would be unable to check these sources. Perhaps you could find copies of these sources elsewhere that are more easily accessible? You have been successful in keeping a neutral tone to your contributions in this article, and I think that you successfully contributed to the article in a way that improved the article from its version before you edited it. Good job!

Nordicmagpie (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)NordicmagpieNordicmagpie (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review for Donatellia
The section you added to this article is well written and concise. It was easy to read, and had good information that was relevant to the topic of the original article. Nothing in your contribution is redundant, and definitely adds to the article, but I think that it would have benefitted the article more if you had added more information about why the Temple of Baachus is most often the location chosen for the Baalbek Festival. Your contribution is significant enough for the assignment as it is right now, but adding more would have made it even stronger. The sources you used seem very credible, and the material you cited from them is beneficial to your contribution. Overall, you did a wonderful job on your contribution, I just think it would have been even more wonderful to add a little more information on how the temple relates to the festival because it is an interesting topic, and more information would have benefitted it even more. Kswaim98 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)