Talk:House of Julia Felix: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Roman Civ Review by Christopher Erlinger |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Roman Civ Review-Brooke Sossin == |
== Roman Civ Review-Brooke Sossin == |
||
This was a really interesting article to read and I especially liked the background information as well as the insights from excavation. I would check the links that show up as red, which mean they don’t match specific Wikipedia articles. The blue ones work fine and help with unusual terms, but things like “Roman statues” won’t have their own articles. Other than editing your citations like Nate mentioned (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes), I would just edit a few of your sentences for clarification. For instance, the second to last sentence about the caldarium would be a lot clearer if you broke it up into a few more sentences. That way people unfamiliar with the Latin terms would get a clearer sense of their definitions. Also, just in terms of the text of the citations, be careful of typos like “answers COrporation” and the date which I think you mean to read 2007-05-07 but reads 2207. [[User:Bsossin|Bsossin]] 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
This was a really interesting article to read and I especially liked the background information as well as the insights from excavation. I would check the links that show up as red, which mean they don’t match specific Wikipedia articles. The blue ones work fine and help with unusual terms, but things like “Roman statues” won’t have their own articles. Other than editing your citations like Nate mentioned (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes), I would just edit a few of your sentences for clarification. For instance, the second to last sentence about the caldarium would be a lot clearer if you broke it up into a few more sentences. That way people unfamiliar with the Latin terms would get a clearer sense of their definitions. Also, just in terms of the text of the citations, be careful of typos like “answers COrporation” and the date which I think you mean to read 2007-05-07 but reads 2207. [[User:Bsossin|Bsossin]] 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Roman Civ Review by Christopher Erlinger == |
|||
A pretty good article, but some lines, suchs as "The art found in the home of Julia Felix is also very interesting," seem to be filler and could probably be done away with. Also, your first section on names presents two interesting facts, but if there is some connection between the meanings in the two periods, it would be cool to touch on that. Your section entitled "Excavation" took me longer to read than most Wikipedia articles (and I get bored and just look at random articles sometimes) because it links to so many specific architectural terms. It makes the article even more informative than it already is, and shows you're well informed on the topic. |
|||
Revision as of 00:04, 14 May 2007
Roman Civ Review-Nate French
You have done a great job describing the house, and its uses. The information is all excellent, but there seems to be some issues with citations. There is no second reference and some of them seem to be identical (the answers.com-which may also not be an appropriate source). The background section is great, as is the description of the art. However, the excavation section is a bit confusing. Also, pictures would be excellent if you can figure them out. Some art and pictures of the house would be ideal. -Nate French
Roman Civ Review-Brooke Sossin
This was a really interesting article to read and I especially liked the background information as well as the insights from excavation. I would check the links that show up as red, which mean they don’t match specific Wikipedia articles. The blue ones work fine and help with unusual terms, but things like “Roman statues” won’t have their own articles. Other than editing your citations like Nate mentioned (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes), I would just edit a few of your sentences for clarification. For instance, the second to last sentence about the caldarium would be a lot clearer if you broke it up into a few more sentences. That way people unfamiliar with the Latin terms would get a clearer sense of their definitions. Also, just in terms of the text of the citations, be careful of typos like “answers COrporation” and the date which I think you mean to read 2007-05-07 but reads 2207. Bsossin 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Roman Civ Review by Christopher Erlinger
A pretty good article, but some lines, suchs as "The art found in the home of Julia Felix is also very interesting," seem to be filler and could probably be done away with. Also, your first section on names presents two interesting facts, but if there is some connection between the meanings in the two periods, it would be cool to touch on that. Your section entitled "Excavation" took me longer to read than most Wikipedia articles (and I get bored and just look at random articles sometimes) because it links to so many specific architectural terms. It makes the article even more informative than it already is, and shows you're well informed on the topic.