User talk:Misfit1723/sandbox/Catacombs of Domitilla

Peer Review 4/5/24 by Lily
Hey Haleigh, sorry for not finishing my peer review until the last minute-ish. I hope this peer review gives a potentially helpful different-point-of-view insight.

I read through your article edits and I just wanted to start off by saying that I really like the headings and sub-header topics you chose because relevant given your article is based on a historical site! This was the first thing I noticed when I landed on your sandbox because they look like an outline for how your article will progress. It’s also a large step up from the original article and you also listed the cubicles that are relevant as sub-headers. I should try doing something similar for my article!

I also wanted to say that your lead to the article was very concise and to the point. I found that in the original article, there were too many sentences detailing information best put under another topic within the article. But in your sandbox you edited the lead to be more readable and straightforward of what is important. I also noticed a lesser amount of references/ citations however, I am not sure if you intend to add them later or if you left them out for another reason. I will say that the sources you used in the lead section are reputable in my opinion because they appear to be sources that are knowledgeable of the catacombs or directly manage it. I am not sure about this, but I think you spelled labyrinth as “labrynth,” so you may have to edit that! I also saw that the title of the article was in a different font from the rest of the article.

As I read through what you wrote for the “Cubicle dei fornai,” I found that the description you have for the surroundings is vivid and helps the reader visualize better what the cubicle would look like. I am not sure how to further access your sources in this section but they appear to be peer-reviewed sources, so I am confident that you have sources that are reputable; however I cannot confirm nor deny if the information you referenced summarizes/ paraphrases what you gleamed from those articles. I don’t think you need to change your sources and every point I think would need a reference has one! The only thing I can suggest on this part is to check if your edits are worded similar to the sources your drew the references from.

The other section I noticed you added and elaborated on was the ownership section. I noticed when reading this that it felt like you were reporting the information as if you were trying to convince me to go to the catacombs myself! I think you are still working on this part because the first sentence caught me off guard with the intro “January 2009.” I was crosschecking your article and the sources used and I noticed a lot of similar phrases and words, so a crucial thing you may have to do is summarize the information that you want to add to this section with words that aren’t the same to the source. I tried to make one sentence as an example of what I mean but it is just a suggestion! You don’t need to add this sentence if you don’t like it and feel free to add upon it if you do choose to keep it.

First sentence: “In January of 2009, the management of the Catacombs of Domitilla was given to the Society of the Divine Word (SVD) to care for and provide educational tours of the catacombs.”

Reading through your article in general, you did a good job on not heavily relying on one source! In my opinon your reporting reads as neutral and informational up until the end on the ownership section. I also noticed that you relocated the paragraphs from the original in places that still fit in your current version of the article, which I thought was cool because it is constructive upon the original! This was all I reviewed and I hope there was something here that helped you.

LYX9 (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)