User talk:History2112/sandbox/Crypteiadraft

Instructor Feedback on Draft/Peer Review 1

History2112 great first draft. This is another complex topic with lots of conflicting information/convoluted sources, and your first attempt at cleaning up the existing page is a significant improvement already. I agree with your reviewer that your page needs a bit of an organizational overhaul, in order to present the information in as clear a way as possible. You'll need to rely on subsections to achieve this, and ensure that each of your sections takes the reader meticulously through the evidence and arguments for all aspects of the Krypteia (oh right, and if we're keeping the 'Crypteia' spelling that's totally fine, but be consistent and make sure that all the terms beginning 'krypt' are also Latinized. Like many topics in this class, another challenge is separating out the Archaic/Classical institution from the later sources. Don't be afraid to draw out your explanations and use as many words as you need to effectively explain the scholarship. Keep adding bibliography so your page has as much recent scholarship as possible. As you work on improving your clarity and organization, your sentence structure will improve too - pay attention to the grammar/syntax suggestions made by your reviewer, as they will be helpful too. Lastly, I agree that the final section can be expanded (pop culture), and hopefully you were already planning on talking about the 'reception' of the krypteia (and how Gillen challenges that). Keep up the great work - all your effort will be worth it, your edits will result in a fantastic improvement to this page! Grade: A+

EKGMachine excellent peer review. You achieved a nice balance between copy editing and content suggestions. I appreciate your attention to detail, as well as to the biases in scholarship (I'm thinking particularly of the African parallels drawn) - these observations are really valuable. You've given your peer a lot to work with, and all your feedback was constructive and insightful. I'm thrilled with the quality of work you've both put into these drafts and peer reviews. Awesome job! Grade: A+

Gardneca (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Second Draft comments for Peer Review #2

I tried to incorporate everything that EKGMachine outlined for me in her review of my article. This involved overhauling the structure of the article (what you see in the current draft is very different from the current Wikipedia article), fixing grammar and sentence structure, and trying to find citations for some of the existing content that was not cited. Finding citations is still an ongoing process and may lead to some of the original content being removed due to lack of accuracy. I am currently working on the "Military Affiliation" section as I discovered that the idea of the Cryptiea being a part of the military is a different understanding than the Cryptiea's general understanding (you will see this beginning to take shape in the draft). Apart from this section I plan to keep conducting research in order to dig up any last morsel of information on the Cryptiea, though it seems like I am getting close to the end when it comes to what is known about the Cryptiea in scholarship. I am also on the hunt for some photographs to include once the time comes but any ancient depictions seem to be non-existent.

Peer Review Feedback #2: Overall I think that you did a very good job with this article. I think that it is very well organized and the material you included is explained clearly and in a way that would make sense to someone who is perhaps not familiar with the topic. However, I did find a lot of small grammar and syntax mistakes when I was going over the article. In particular, there were about 3 or 4 different spellings of the word "crypteia" throughout the article, and so I think it would be a good idea to go back through and change these so that you have a uniform spelling throughout, and so that it matches the title of the article. I think that the fact that you provided the different possible spellings for the word in the opening statement eliminates some of the confusion (and is a good addition), but for the sake of simplicity I would just stick to one way throughout. As for the other typos/grammar mistakes, most were pretty small and should be easy to fix, I outlined them on the word document I sent. Once these changes are made, I think you will be left with a really good article. Based on the limited research material available, I think that you managed to make a very complete article, and I appreciate that you included a section on the cryteia's reception in popular culture. Overall, I think you've done really well, and I can't think of any major changes that need to be made! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katochis (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)