User talk:Edowker/sandbox

Elizabeth's Peer Review
The lead is very clear and the perfect length; it gives a general overview and background for the rest of the article. There are a few sentences that I didn't understand like "Many of the tombs at Xanthos are pillar tombs, which are a monumental form or burial where a large pillar supports a stone sarcophagus-like structure placed atop it". Is it supposed to say monumental form ofburial? Maybe you could write "Many of the tombs at Xanthos are pillar tombs: monumental tombs that use large pillars to support stone sarcophagus-like structures placed on top". The only other thing with the lead is that the first sentence of the second paragraph is confusing to read. Maybe you could split it into two sentences so it's not a run on sentence?

Again, the structure to this article is really good. I like how there's a header for the three pillar tombs you're talking about, but then I got confused on whether the Neried monument was a pillar tomb since it's under that heading but then it says it's a temple. If it's a different kind of building from the lion pillar and the harpy tomb I'd suggest putting it under a different header for clarification. Also, in the first paragraph for the lion tomb it says that the details of the frieze indicate Greek craftsmanship instead of Lycian. What details? If it's about the contrast you could put that sentence first and then clarify. Then at the end of the second paragraph it says, "While the lion on the South side has weight and mass, the lion on the south side has a thinner form". I don't understand which lions you're talking about here, maybe just change south side for one of them since they're supposed to be different.

Overall I think the main points are really strong, it's all neutral content and I think the lengths of the paragraphs are perfect. I learned a lot of new things about funerary architecture, but I think it could be stronger if you talk more about death in the lead and then also in the lion pillar section. Good connection to the theme with the underworld on the harpy tomb, and I trust everything I read since you had good sources (textbooks and scholarly journals). Your article is encouraging me to talk more about dates in mine and to connect each section I talk about to our main theme (death).

Sunni's Comment
Hi Elizabeth, your article is really coming together! I think you've included some good information about the tombs. Your introductory paragraph is well written, and the other paragraphs are split up by the different tombs, which works great. Your citations look good to me, so keep on doing good work! Sunniobrien (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Sunni O'Brien

Comments from Prof. Paga
Hi Elizabeth - this is a great article so far! I have a few suggestions to make it even stronger, and your peer-reviewer also has good notes: Jpaga (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Add a map that indicates where Xanthos is (perhaps just use the same map on the Wikipedia page for Xanthos?)
 * Make sure to always include BCE or CE in your dates
 * As noted by your peer-reviewer, the 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph of your lead / intro section is quite confusing. You'll need to revise that for clarity.
 * In the Nereid monument section, there are a few things that need clarification. It is not a temple, so make sure to be clear about that.  You also mention Erbinna but don't tell us anything about this person.
 * Throughout the article you mention Greek vs. Lycian styles and influences. Perhaps include a final section specifically about this?  It's an interesting and important aspect of the tombs.