User talk:Jarbobinkly/draft

=Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 1= Heinev1 thanks for your review and your suggestions. Your tone is very positive and encouraging, which is much appreciated. Don't hold back in your critique, however, since constructive criticism is always welcome and will contribute to a better article overall. Likewise, provide as much detail as you can so your peer isn't left guessing. For example, what unique information did you find in the lead that you think could use its own section? What other terms besides sepulchre and magistrate should be expanded? The more specific you can be the better, so keep that in mind for the next round. Great work, thanks for being so supportive of your peer's work! Grade: 17/20

Jarbobinkly a good start to your article improvements, and I'm particularly happy to see you adding to different sections of the article at once. Take your peer's suggestions about the lead, the clarification of terminology, and citations seriously, and then after you incorporate those changes keep adding information. I want to see some examples/case studies, and additional primary sources added to your page. Your sentence-structure is generally very good, but make sure to proofread for clarity. Overall, good work! 18/20 Gardneca (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

=Peer Review= Hi Jarbobinkly! I think this is a great draft of your article. Below I've listed the things that I like and the things that I think you could work on.

1. The content you added is all neutral and fits really well into the existing article.

2. The lead includes quite a bit of information. I think it would be best if you incorporated that information into other sections in the article, or created new sections if needed, and rework the lead to be more concise and a summary of what is included in the article rather than something that provides unique information.

3. Pictures would be a great way to break up the text on the page and interest the reader. They do not have to be a photo of patronage exactly but maybe some famous patrons or something like that would work!

4. There are some terms used throughout the article whose meanings maybe aren't common knowledge, you could consider linking them to other wikipedia pages. Some of these terms include: sepulchre, magistrates, etc.

5. The paragraph you added to the late antiquity and middle ages section is great! I see a citation at the end of it, but make sure you are citing throughout to ensure high credibility :)

Overall, this is a really strong start. With some additional details, some photos, and a little more polishing this will be a fantastic article. Heinev1 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)