User talk:RachelKWalsh/Sandbox2

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? (provide username) RachelKWalsh's Ancient Greek Religion page
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RachelKWalsh/Sandbox2

Content

 * The content is all relevent and interesting
 * The content stays neutral
 * This is a very important topic to be added to the page - good choice!
 * The sentance on the requirements of the oracle of Delphi doesn't make much sense, maybe re-word it to be more clear about your meaning?

Structure

 * The section really needs a revision for sentance structure.
 * There is a lot of long sentances with many commas. On wikipedia shorter sentances with periods as opposed to multiple commas work better.
 * There are a few spelling errors and typos
 * There are a few instances where it seems like two sentances were combined but not properly edited together
 * The Greek words should be italicized
 * Greek or Greeks should always be capitalized.

Sources and References

 * The sources seem reliable by title, but only the link to the third one works. Make sure you aren't linking to pages only accesible via a library account!

Organization

 * The content is presented in an order that makes perfect sense - very well done!

Overall impressions

 * Overall the section is full of good information, and just needs a quick edit to flow much better
 * Revisit the sources and find working links for them if possible
 * You seem to have done a great job of getting information from your sources, maybe add a few sentances to other sections as well if you have the info.

Instructor Feedback
Thank you for your review, Camsara99, it is very helpful and you give good suggestions for improvement.

RachelKWalsh I agree with your peer reviewer that a good amount of proofreading for clarity is needed here. The content (and sources) you have are excellent so far, so please work on making your sentences as clear and straightforward as possible, and on incorporating all of the changes listed above. Once you have done that, just keep adding as much content as you can to this page - keep up the good work! 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) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer review response
User:Camsara99 Thank you for your response! I will work on what you have suggested and edited it accordingly. I'll make sure to double-check that my sources are outside of library accounts, I had not noticed it when researching. Also, I hope my review helps in any way in finalizing your article if you have any questions feel free to ask!

User:Gardneca I agree with the review also, especially about the sources, I don't think I would have noticed if not pointed out to me. Over the next month, I'll work on improving clarity and adding more content to the article. I might stay focused on the broad and general information and then see if I can add a few key figures with greater detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelKWalsh (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, RachelKWalsh, I'm really looking forward to seeing your final product! Gardneca (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)