User talk:Jpeashoes

Welcome
Hello, Jpeashoes and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review
The preexisting lead is effective and detailed enough to serve its purpose without being overly in-depth-- no revisions appear to be necessary. The added content on the presence of female orans is effective, and could be even more beneficial if you provide evidence of female orans depictions in art based on your sources so that the piece of information can be attributed to concrete scholarly work. The expanded information on female orans could then be put in the history section rather than the art section since it provide important historical context.

In the context of the paragraph you revised, it feels as though your added sentence should be split up. The first point you make states that other scholars disagree with the metaphorical claims about the orans pose-- I would love some evidence on that. The following piece of information about female orans depictions indicating female church leadership seems like it is branching off into a new topic and could warrant a new paragraph to allow you to go further in depth rather than trying to combine your two interesting, but slightly different, points into one sentence.

This is a small revision to the original article, but the opening sentence doesn't read as neutral to me-- in your revisions, you may consider altering it to say something like: "One piece of evidence that has been interpreted as demonstrating the connection of orans to the soul..." so that we avoid trying to convince the reader of anything (I know it wasn't your writing, but it would improve the overall article quality).

Your bibliography seems to be full of relevant and academic sources, and I would love to see more of those ties into your work as you continue to expand the article!

Your revisions are helpful to my own work because, in reading through yours, it has helped me reflect and brainstorm on places where we can move topics to different sections of the article where they may be more beneficial, and where we can justify creating new paragraphs/sections entirely based on the research we complete. Olivia Jameson (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you so much for the comments! Your ideas about adding more concrete evidence with the addition of depictions of female orans were particularly helpful - I think it would definitely make my additions feel more substantiated & accessible to readers. Even more, I really appreciated what you said about creating/merging different sections, the directness of those comments gave me concrete actions to follow. Thank you again! Jpeashoes (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead:
The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content that was added, however, it appears as though only a small section of writing has been added to the "Depictions in Art" section so a change to the lead may not be necessary at this point. As we continue to edit and add to our changes it may be useful to go back and look at the lead to see if any changes need to be made. Otherwise, the lead that is on the original article is concise and clear, has a brief description of the article's major sections, and does not include information that is not present in the article.

Content:
The content concerning the differing opinions about the significance of females in the Orans pose in the early church is very relevant to the topic. This content seems to be up to date with the oldest resource being from 1998. At the moment, there does not appear to be any missing content or content that does not belong. With your additions, this article slightly deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses women in the early church, which is a historically underrepresented population and topic.

Tone and Balance:
The content that was added is neutral and does not appear to make any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position. The added content actually fixes an area that was underrepresented by covering a different side of opinions about the female orans figures. The content added does not appear to persuade the reader to favor one position or away from another.

Organization:
The content that was added is clear, concise, and well-written. While your added content does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors, however, at the beginning of the second sentence of the paragraph you edited there appears to be a miss-type of the word "Other" in front of that sentence.

Overall Impressions:
While there has only been one sentence added to this article so far, it fits well with the information around it and blends seamlessly into the rest of the article on the Orans. My only critique would be that there need to be some more substantial edits to the article for me to provide any real helpful feedback. --TreaBunny (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I really enjoyed going over your critiques and suggestions for my article and appreciate your feedback. Thanks to your feedback I will definitely go back into the traditional history section to add references to some of the other martyrs Blandina was with, specifically Ponticus, to help provide more background for my significance section. I will also make sure to include context when I delve deeper into the significance section. Thank you! TreaBunny (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the help! I appreciate your comments. I definitely agree with the sentiment that there needs to be more substantial edits in order to provide some real change & information on the topic at hand. The "Other" typo has been deleted too. I'll make sure to keep in mind your critiques for the Lead section as I started to add more.

Response to Peer Review
Thank you so much for the kind responses on my current revisions and suggestions for future revisions! I have already gone in and separated the two paragraphs based on your suggestion and it is definitely easier to digest that way. I will continue looking to expand my sources because I think your point about bias is absolutely true-- I will look more into the Cohick and Hughes and see if I can find applicable chapters, or I'll check the bibliographies of my current sources and see if I can find more supporting texts! Thank you! Olivia Jameson (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Jpeashoes, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Brianda and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)