User talk:JanelleDeseree/Plague of Ashdod (Poussin)

Peer Review
Hello, Janelle! It looks like you have a great start and are headed in the right direction for improving your article. I glanced at the original to see the differences and you are definitely sprucing it up. Looking at the lead, I feel like the sentence about its location in Paris could be tagged along to the end of the previous one. For example: "The Plague of Ashdod, also known as The miracle of the Ark in the temple of Dragon, is a painting by Nicolas Poussin, which currently hangs in the Louvre in Paris." Also, is there any interesting statement regarding the overall significance of this painting or its connection to Poussin that could be used to draw in readers? Not that it's supposed to imitate a persuasive essay in any way, but maybe adding something that gives a little more (just a sentence or two) about its importance in the art community, in history, to historians now, etc. I feel like that could give the article itself more of a foundation and clear lead into the main idea of the painting--something I probably need to check in with my own. In terms of structure, I think you have a good grasp on what needs to be added with the layout of your headings. I do believe, however, that the content that is added under "Artist" would probably be more suited for the "History" and/or "Subject Matter" sections. That information more so deals with contextual significance rather than the artist himself. You could still add some stuff about the artist, but I would be careful about it unintentionally becoming just an article about Poussin (if that makes sense). Was there anything that drew Poussin to the subject? Does the painting/content mean anything to him personally as an artist? Does it reflect any of his beliefs? Or was it just something you painted in that era that would grant you success or respect? Just an idea of some exploring along those lines. It looks like you are still planning on adding to some other headings that haven't been addressed just yet, as well as ones that you are still working on. When they come in, I think they will really make this article sing, since that information is probably a hearty chunk. The citations aren't plopped in, but I understand that you are still working out the kinks with the mechanics of Wikipedia. I do like that you are tagging a placeholder for them all at the end of your sentences so that you won't forget--great idea. The sentences under "Influence", I do want to point out, come off as a little bit like 'steering-the-readers-towards-an-opinion'. Be careful when this happens and try to stick to a very unbiased point-of-view (it's very strange and kind of hard to get used to, I know). One thing that I need to change in my article is attributing beliefs/thoughts to the respective historian. Instead of saying, "Some historians say..." or "It has been said..." Professor Miller suggested that these subjective inclusions be noticeably associated with whoever said it. That way no one on the talk page will start sifting through and comment, "Well, who exactly said this?" I think this aspect could also be applied to your article, as well. Your source list looks very nice with its focus on your topic and I know a lot of solid information will sprout from these. Overall, you have cultivated a well-rounded idea and start on expanding your article, considering how tiny it was before, and I know it will be amazing once you're finished. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments--my name is Jordan by the way. Other than that, keep up the great work! AloGamora (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)