User talk:StrawwberryShortcake/Desert Mothers

Added my Peer Review Here As Well!
Lead
 * The lead has been updated to fit the new content. Not much change was needed however since the User was adding valuable information to what already existed.
 * Yes. The lead includes a solid introductory sentence. This was one that already existed but still flows nicely with the new information.
 * I would say so. It discusses who and what exactly the desert mothers were as well as their counterparts. I would maybe bring some examples of the desert mothers up into this section before talking about them further on in the body.
 * No. I feel like it's going straight into the content of the article.


 * I think the lead in concise and not overly detailed.

Content


 * Yes. The content is relevant to article.
 * To my knowledge it looks up to date. Maybe something to double check when polishing up your article.
 * I do not think anything is missing as of right now!
 * I would say yes because it's talking about women within asceticism. However I'm undecided on the equity gap considering to economic stances some of these women were in versus others.

Tone And Balance


 * Yes. The content is neutral.
 * No. Nothing looks heavily biased.
 * I don't believe so. I will discuss more in class about this!
 * No.

Sources and References


 * Your sources look really good. I would just make sure your formatting is correct on the bibliography page and your reference list. I noticed the sandbox has a "works cited" but others have a "references." I suggest going back through the bibliography modules and updating and it should transfer over. Whenever you cite in the sandbox, it should automatically create a reference list from your bibliography page if formatted correctly. It is a bit of a process and it took me a couple tries to get it formatted correctly on my bibliography page. I can help with this during class!
 * Yes, the content reflect what the sources say.
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Yes except for the works by King, then by Ward.
 * I would say so!
 * These are the best ones I found on OU libraries so I think these are the best available to the User.
 * The links worked when I pushed the cited numbers.

Organization


 * The content is well written and easy to read!
 * For the most part, grammar and spelling looks correct. I have grammarly installed on my computer, and it's wanting to change "anchoretic" in the first paragraph to "anchoritic." However, I do not know how the original source spelled the word. I would suggest double checking it!
 * Yes, the content is well-organized to reflect the article's main points.

Images And Media


 * The User added no additional images to the article yet

For New Articles Only


 * This is not a new article.

Overall Impressions


 * The content added has made the article more complete. It has added more details to the lifestyle and characteristics of the desert mothers. It has made the article more complete but will still need more information.
 * The addition's strength is the in depth details added to Melania the Elder, details on desert mothers, and desert fathers.
 * I think it would be really interesting if more of the saying could be added. I remember reading a bit about the saying in class and would think it would be a great addition to your article.
 * Your article has helped me get a better idea of how my formatting should look. I've been struggling with my lead a bit and my flow going into the article and learned a lot from your sentence structure. Also great job on noting what you added/changed. I was not doing this and was getting lost in my work. I will be implementing this in my work from here on out.

Great Job!!!

Bibliography notes under Sources and References

Lancelotsdaughter (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)