User talk:McLeanB23/sandbox

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (McLeanB23)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
Lots of the content you added was already referenced in the lead however you may want to adjust the lead to have more of a focus on the sections you have improved.Yes the lead gives a very concise breakdown about the articles topic may want to split it into multiple sentences having the first be very high-level and the second giving more in depth reviews.No the lead definitely needs to touch on the individual sections more to provide the reader a better overview of the entire article.Some of the info is repeated in a different way later on but i would say that all of it is covered.I would say if anything its a little short it provides good information about the article but needs to touch more on the individual sections within the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Yes everything added seemed on topic with the article adding beneficial information.Yes the content is up to date with sources covering a wide time span.Winged Artemis feels like it is missing a little more detail or could possibly be shifted to the bottom to ease the importance of it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes the writing is very neutral with no clear opinion being held by the writer.Don't notice any bias in the article seems pretty neutral.I would say the viewpoints are all evenly covered with most being a very third party style just listing facts.Nope this article to me feels like it is just trying to provide knowledge about the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes lots of strong references giving honesty to the data.Yes they seem to be very strong sources giving a rounded collection of info for the article.Yes with some dating as early as 2014.Yes the links do work on the 2 I tried.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Yes very easy to read some of the spacing seemed a little off especially in the Excavation section but I think that is due to the Bolded letters.I couldn't find any before you publish I recommend using Grammarly to be safe. Yes the topics are well organized you may want to shuffle them around putting the most important at the top and some of the larger ones in the middle for ease to the reader. Some of the larger sections you may want to break down into sub sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Yes i believe you are absolutely on the right track just clean up the lead to provide a more clear overview and touch on the individual sections.Provides a lot more info and the references help provide readers with external resources. Just make sure to keep the article flowing well as well as keeping the spacing and look clean so readers don't have to jump around. Good Work over all!

Instructor Feedback
Thank you for your review, EAB2000, it provides good suggestions and observations for "big-picture" improvements and outcomes for this article.

McLeanB23 You've done a really impressive amount of work with regard to the content you've added to this article already, so great job on that front! Your peer reviewer focused more on big-picture aspects of this article as a whole, and gives some good suggestions for organization and adding content - you'll want to incorporate those. In terms of the nitty-gritty grammar and sentence-structure, there are some general suggestions I have: you aim for concise, direct sentences which is great, but there are a few odd instances of word choice.

"The sanctuary is located in Peloponnese, on the south bank of the Eurotas River, at ancient Sparta. This location was above the reach of all but the severest flooding which began near the start of the 6th century BCE. After the flood caused extensive damage to the site, it was then lifted beyond the reach of the water using sand that formed a blanket-like cover, isolating artifacts existing beneath. The original sanctuary was believed to be built in ca. 700 B.C.E." Rearrange this so that the info about the earliest date appears first, and then explain that it needed to be moved b/c of flooding. Also, did the flooding 'begin' in the 6th century, or did a severe flood 'occur' during the 6th century?

"overtaking parts of where the old temple was" --> "built atop portions of the old temple"?

"he second temple was entirely rebuilt in the 2nd century BCE, during the Hellenistic age, except for the altar. The second temple was utilized only for a bit of the 4th century when it was then thought to be forgotten about." --> rephrase for clarity; 2nd century or 4th century?

"alter" should be "altar"

Cult section "during the beginning years of the temples opening" --> slightly awkward, rephrase "Parathenos" --> parthenos (virgin goddess) "ensuring the seriousness" --> "ensuring" is the wrong word here "The Cult at Sparta, were found often to use masks in the shape of various animals." --> awk capitalization and sentence-structure, rephrase for clarity "Many myths portray her as having a surrounding of nymphs serving her as royalty along with satyrs coming from Dionysos, therefore, females living at a young age become very honourable towards the cult." --> awk, rephrase for clarity "Young females seen honouring the cult are considered celibate" --> change to past tense "Men also had relations to the greek goddess, because of such, the ephebes could seen being beaten with objects such as whips at the alter of the temple in Sparta, daimastigosis (see below)." --> confusion, "relations"? Expand upon this. Also "Greek" should be capitalized. "cannot be properly deciphered." --> "deciphered" wrong word here

Excavation of the site section --> great additions, but try to make this more of a prose-style paragraph that reads really smoothly, as opposed to bullet points.

Really fantastic work so far, you've done a lot of research and it shows! It will be a challenge to re-write your sentences for clarity, but I know you'll be able to tackle this. Remember, you are giving the facts as an encyclopedia would present them. Going forward, please incorporate all the changes your peer reviewer suggested and, once you are done with that, keep adding content to the page with the above considerations in mind. Lastly, make sure all of your references have author names and dates in them. Ultimately, I'm very pleased with what you've done so far, so great job! Please let me know if you have any questions, and reply to this comment when you have seen it with your plans and goals for improvement over the next month. Don't forget to tag me and sign with 4 tildes (~)! Gardneca (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Professor Gardner
Thank you both very much for all the great feedback. I can see how awkward some of those sentences are and I will absolutely do my best to rephrase them. Sometimes when my brain is feeling burnt out, I struggle more with my paraphrasing and things don't come out so clear. Same with the choice of words that don't seem to fit. I plan to make all the corrections and changes suggest by my peer reviewer and yourself and I will also be attempting to add a bit more tot h article as well. Finding sources on the winged artimis in particular was a bit tricky, however, I will do my best to improve that section a bit more and if only a little bit extra gets added I will re-organize the page as my peer reviewer suggested in order to compensate for that. Overall i'm happy to hear all the remarks, positive and constructive and I will keep working hard. McLeanB23 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Gardneca

Sounds great, McLeanB23, I'm really looking forward to seeing your final product! Gardneca (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)