User talk:Of Noble Berth/Roman technology

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 2
Nealthane thanks for your review. You do a good job of presenting several different areas for improvement, but without specific example some recommendations are a bit confusing - I had to read a few of your points a couple times to understand (especially the first point about citations, which I believe I've clarified below). And your last recommendation for improving clarity is also great, but could have been more helpful with additional examples of areas to improve. Overall, though, it's clear you read through this critically and carefully, so good job! Grade: 12/15

Of Noble Berth You've added another great chunk of content to this article, so great work there. I see that you've already commented on your peer's feedback, and your plan looks really solid to me. In terms of your peer's first comment (about references), I think they're referring to sections like the 'armour' paragraph which doesn't have any citations - and although you've taken this from the existing article and its not your original writing, it still ought to be cited. So, I believe that's what they meant (rather than adding additional citations to your paragraphs that have a citation at the end, representing the preceeding content) - does that help at all? And I think when they mention sentence-structure (like the 'stones' section), it's not that each individual sentence has problematic structure, it's that all the sentences in that sentence are approximately the same length, so there's a lack of variety in sentence-length and presentation. By varying the length and style of your sentences, you'll produce more engaging writing. Otherwise, as I already mentioned, your plan looks great and I trust that you will make the right decision regarding the 'Energy Constraints' and 'Craft Basis' sections, but I can definitely help you if you'd like to chat about a plan for either of those. Keep up the excellent work! 14/15 Gardneca (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 1
Of Noble Berth you can see that a link to your review is included below. If you'd like to copy-and-paste the body of the review onto this page, you are welcome to do so! Overall, you've done a great job of adding content to your draft. I don't think you necessarily need to readjust your sub (and sub-sub!) sections, but you might think about your overall organization as you go forward. Also, I really found the 'perfect number' aspect interesting, but your peer reviewer might be on to something - if they thought it seemed out of place in the article, someone else might too, so you should do your best to connect everything back to technology. There are a few grammatical/proofreading issues, and I would suggest taking a quick trip to the writing centre after this next round of drafts to get a fresh perspective on the clarity and presentation of this page, I think it would really be beneficial. For your next draft, continue to add content as you have been, since you have such a monumental topic that will be your main priority. Remember, don't add too much for any one subsection, since most subsections will have their own page elsewhere. With regard to the 'building' section, you might want to note why you've chosen to highlight those two buildings; and remember my earlier comments on the Hagia Sophia - it's not really a Roman building, so please reconsider how you're presenting it! Great work so far! Grade: 19/20 Gardneca (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Here is the link to the peer review for you first draft. There was a good deal of content added to better the article, but I hope my critiques are helpful in improving the article even further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Of_Noble_Berth/Roman_technology/Thegodofchaos_Peer_Review --Thegodofchaos (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to Nealthane's Peer Review 2
My plan for the final revision:

Continue to add content to the article. I am looking to add to the buildings section by including a section on the Colosseum and possibly a temple/mausoleum. I will also add more content to the building materials section. I may also highlight specific aqueducts and dams. Edit and improve the grammar of sections already completed. The goal being to make the language more concise, less wordy and easier to read. Review the work for any hints of non-neutral language and correcting such language. Adding links within the text to other Wikipedia pages for further reading. Adding more images and rearranging current images to make the article more presentable. Figuring out what to do with the current sections, "Energy constraints" and "Craft basis". Whether it be finding citations for the sections, rewriting the sections with new citations, or removing the sections completely. As for the citations I placed in my work, I plan to leave them. My understanding from class was that it would look cluttered and less readable if every sentence was cited with the same citation (I did this in my first edit). Instead sources should be cited at the end of each paragraph if the paragraph came from the same source (as I have done in the second edit). I know my language and phrasing is fairly weak so I will start by focusing on reviewing and editing my own work, then move on to dealing with the "energy constaints" and "craft basis" section, followed by incorporating images and on to adding in more content. Of Noble Berth (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)