User talk:Hannahhelm/sandbox

Instructor Feedback on Peer Review/Draft 2
History2112 thanks for your excellent peer review! It's very clear and allows your peer to see exactly where they should address areas of concern. You give great suggestions on content, presentation, and grammar, which is much appreciated. Grade: 15/15 Gardneca (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hannahhelm 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. 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!

Hannahhelm Great work addressing the comments from your first review and adding content (and thanks for underlining the changes, that was very helpful!). With regard to comments made by your second peer reviewer, please make all the changes they suggested, but please keep the sentence at the top of the article about the disambiguation, this is a standard Wikipedia formula. Your peer reviewer is absolutely right about the capitalization, and I didn't even catch that! Patrician only needs to be capitalized in the title and at the beginning of sentences (obviously), but no where else. Conversely, Twelve Tables should be capitalized throughout. When your reviewer says "the periods at the end of your sentences should be inside the quotation",O believe they mean citation, and they are right - so please address this and the spacing after the ends of sentences. 'Specially' - did you mean 'specifically'? As you move to the final stages of this project, you're going to want to proofread and edit this article carefully (or perhaps ask a friend to look it over for you with a critical eye). The content is great (and I believe you'll add more before the final published draft, right?), but there are a few sentences which can be much clearer, or elaborated upon. For example 'Due to the patricians having the political status...' 'One way to mix plebeians and patricians was to intermarry.' etc. Also, watch your casual language (I mentioned this in the first round of peer reviews) and remove colloquial expressions like 'on board' and 'were done with'. Keep up the great work, you're in the home stretch and I'm really looking forward to seeing the final product! Grade: 14/15 Gardneca (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Hannahhelm excellent annotated bibliography. Your additions are very clearly laid out and I believe that you are going to make some significant improvements to this article. One thing to note, in your second source (Mathisen), when discussing the Twelve Tables you mention that marriage between the two classes was not illegal - but the law in the Twelve Tables actually declared this as illegal (hence the ensuing outrage). This may have been a typo, but I still wanted to mention it. I'm really looking forward to seeing how you incorporate the Thompson article, because this is a great way to tie ancient & modern society together. Great work so far! Grade: 10/10 Gardneca (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback: Draft/Peer Review 1
Hannahhelm I really like the work you've done on this draft so far. Your peer review can be found on this page. You can see that they are generally very positive, and you may want to consider their suggestions for expanding the conflict of orders section. I have some additional suggestions in terms of grammar, organization, and clarity: Consolidate footnotes (one for each identical reference); work on phrasing ("Appointing these hundred men into the senate gave them a status, a noble status: Better --> Appointing these 100 men into the senate gave them a noble status) and proofreading (The patricians were in Ancient Rome were of the same status as aristocrats in Greek society --> 'were' twice). Don't refer readers to the "Social Class in Ancient Rome" site if it doesn't exist (red link in draft). Watch casual language ('on board'). Keep up the great work adding content, and go through your existing work with a fine-toothed comb to make sure it is clear and straightforward. Great work so far! Grade: 20/20 Gardneca (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer review #2
Hi Hannahhelm,

My peer-review of your article has been added to your sandbox!

All the best, History2112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by History2112 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Improving my Article
Hi Prof. Gardner,

I added a section into my sandbox which details my exercises for this week.

Best,

Hannah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahhelm (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hannahhelm excellent work, thanks for making it so clear! Don't forget to sign your comments, though :) Gardneca (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
My peer review gave me lots to think about. I am going to change the way I address less known authors, such as Mathisen to ensure that the reader can understand the credibility of my sources. In addition to this stylistic change, my peer reviewer gave me excellent critiques on my spacing and citations. I have gone through and edited my spacing of new sentences and my punctuation after citations. I am going to rework my lead to made the reader understand more of what I mean by including a more detailed sentence on the impact on modern day. While I did my best to find modern sources, such as Mathisen, I am going to look deeper to see if there is anything more contemporary I can add. I updated some of my less academic words as per the advice of the peer review. I really appreciated all of the help from this peer review, I found this extremely helpful. I think that these suggestions will elevate my article, and if I can find any more sources I will try and find new information that will create an even more well-rounded article. I am going to spend the rest of my time tightening up my sentences and making my article the best it can be grammatically.

Hannahhelm (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 Comments
I would probably delete this first sentence from the original article. You explain that the article is about the social and political classes of ancient Rome below. It is out of place and awkward in my opinion. If you wanted to leave "For other uses of the term, see Patrician (disambiguation)," I would put it at the end of the lead. Here you sometimes capitalize the word Patrician and sometimes do not (recurrent throughout the rest of the article as well). I would either capitalize Patrician everywhere or not, except when beginning a sentence obviously. If you consider Patrician to be a proper noun then usually those are expected to always be capitalized but perhaps that is a question for Dr. Gardner. When talking about the social structure in your first sentence I would say what class distinction you are talking about since you are starting a new paragraph/line: "The Social structure of Ancient Rome revolved around the Patriation class distinction" (or something to this affect). How does the legacy of the Patrician and Plebeian distinction live on in modern society? While you do go on to discuss this later in the article I think this statement needs a little more information, without it the sentence sounds awkward and appears out of place. The periods at the end of your sentences should be inside the quotation, not on the outside. Your new sentences are also one too many spaces from the end of the pervious sentence, I would bring them back one space towards the period. These mistake appear throughout the rest of your revisions to the article. I would remove the word "specially" from your fourth sentence here. Specially is usually considered to be the informal of "especially" but I do not think you need it here. I would just begin your sentence with "He indicates..." If you are going to reference Mathieson within a the sentence I would give him more of a description. Use his full name or what sort of scholar he is, etc. since he is not a widely know or very researchable source like Livy for example. If "Marriage" is going to be used as a sub-heading I would use the same sub-heading font (Sub-Heading 1) as the rest of them, or change all of the sub-headings under "Origins" to be Sub-Heading 3. I would restructure your first sentence and take out the word "mix," maybe add a formal synonym for mix? In your third sentence I would say who the marriage was between: "If a marriage was to occur between and patrician and a plebian..." In your next sentence, you reference Mathieson again so I would consider my previous advise. Like Mathieson, I would make note of who Thompson is since he is not as well know as Livy, Cassius, etc. Overall the tone of your additions to the article are unbiased and the information well cited. I would watch your use of commas as some appear to be out of place and make some sentences a little awkward. You reference some fairly old sources which could be improved if there is more relevant and up to date source material, but if that is all that is available to you then that's all that's available. I would also consider adding some sort of visual if possible.

These are from my sandbox, I just wanted to move them so I can continue editing my draft without getting confused.

Hannahhelm (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)