User talk:Rkbjunior/sandbox

You're off to a good start both in terms of research and starting to lay out your content. Here are a few considerations as you revise: The research and references look great, so well done in that regard! Please touch base with any questions.
 * As I read your entry, I wonder if it makes sense to just integrate your material into the existing Rufius Probianus entry rather than create a separate entry for the diptych. If you go that route, adjust headings accordingly of course.
 * the first paragraph in History has a lot of important background, but right now it's written more the way you would for a research paper. Thinking about the context in Wikipedia, where there is a specific entry on diptychs, it's important to have all of your info be specifically pertinent to your topic. Therefore, I think this material could work but you'd have to frame it so that it was evident from the beginning of the section that it informed how we can understand your ivory
 * a specific point in the first paragraph needs some clarification, for consuls were often sponsors of games. That said, this might be a strategic place to indicate that Rufius' status as a vicarius was beneath that of a consul
 * cut"This places its creation in late 4th and early 5th century. " --redundant w prior statement
 * then maybe "most assuredly.." can follow w just a comma preceding it
 * the second paragraph needs a little fine-tuning so that the flow of ideas is more clear
 * Your Construction and Features section has very important info and description, too. Wikipedia entries though typically don't use words like pretty (maybe "very" instead?)--aim for clear writing that's in the happy middle ground between casual prose and dense academic writing.
 * include where the diptych currently is, which I bet is in the Nees book (maybe in photo credits if not in the image caption I'd guess)

AMcClanan (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Great Research
Great job with all the historical background and detail on the ivory diptych. You do a good job at being objective when talking about the piece. Since there is not a clear statement or introduction in the beginning to explain exactly what the ivory diptych of Rufius Probianus, I think you should add one just to be very clear. After adding one then the history will make more sense because that needed context is present. Also, as a suggestion, maybe add wikipedia links to the names like Theodosius, Rufius Probianus, or even dipytch. These links will lead to the wikipedia pages of that name or topic for better understanding without having to go into detail about them. I think these small changes would help the article, otherwise good work! Catchumall (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Feedback
What an interesting read, I didn't have previous knowledge of diptychs prior to reading your sandbox. A picture of the specific diptych you're discussing would be great, also loved how you touched down on issues of jurisdiction and other problems of joint rule during the period when the Roman empire had split into its eastern and western halves. I look forward to seeing your end product!

-Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by DG14420 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

From Prof McClanan, 12/7
Excellent work, and your material is well-integrated into the Ruf. Probianus entry.

AMcClanan (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)