Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 2

Hguenard thanks for your comments and suggestions for improvement, especially with regard to bolstering the content. Well done! Grade: 13/15

RachelKWalsh good work proofreading and copy-editing your draft from the first round of peer reviews, it is already looking stronger. I did notice that there are a few things still to be addressed (capitalize Roman in the sentence "Physical disabilities affecting sight, hearing and speech made daily life difficult for the roman citizen, as in roman culture the act of communication and private interaction was of high importance") and your reviewer is absolutely right that there are still some run-on sentences and awkward phrasing. This may sound odd, but read your sentences out loud to yourself or another person to improve the clarity. I have a question about the Notable Romans section: I see you did some heavy reorganizing, but how is it arranged? It's almost chronological, which is great, but there's a BC way down the list (and Claudius at the end). Chronologically is a good way to organize this, and you can even put a sentence at the top of this section to that effect ("Below is a list of notable Romans with disability, presented in chronological order). OR If you're organizing it by type of disability, I think it should then go into subsections for greater clarity. We can chat more about this if you like! Lasty, I also agree with your reviewer that you should expand the sections on mental illness, and overall I think you can expand your existing sections even more with the great bibliographic resources you have. Take Trentin, Draycott, Rose et al. and go through them and just add add add! This is the point where you can make this page really stand out, so keep working hard for these last couple weeks! Grade: 13/15

Peer Review 2

Overall, I really enjoy your article on Disabilities in Rome. I think that the flow of it is well done and it is entertaining to learn about this topic. Facts such as going blind being the least trouble when it comes to disabilities is very interesting to me. Especially since today we place so much value on our sight with smart phones, TV, laptops, etc. You have plenty of content and your sources all look really good to me. You have definitely improved the article. Good job!

Perhaps on the last paragraph on Medical Opinion you could expand exactly on in what way the woman’s mental illness was treated different from the men. That seems like an intriguing fact of your article.

I would continue to proof-read your article for grammar. For example, the sentence, “Few exceptions being in writing a will, without the ability to see a witness multiple had to be present and unlike the deaf or those deemed mentally incapable had the option to represent and speak for themselves in court.” Seems to be a run-on sentence and could use some commas. I would probably put a comma in after the word “see”. Another example is your last edit in the “In Roman Culture” section, the word “there” is used in the wrong context.

My only question of the article is with the description of Senator Gnaeus Domitius Tullus. Was becoming old and inevitably crippled before dying of old age considered a disability? If so, I feel like that would be quite common in people dying of old age. So, I guess my question is wondering why Senator Tullus gets a shout out for what would seem to me to be a common occurrence.

Hguenard (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hguenard Thank you for your review and suggestions! I will work on proof reading and editing my grammar misakes in the article for my final draft. Also I had not looked at Tullus' situation from that perspective and glad you pointed it out. As a solution I may explain how it relates to the Romans attitude towards those who become handicapped and those that inevitablity do from old age as you wrote. or more probably I will expand more on his situation and find a source that supports his addition to that scection. Finally i will add an explantaion as to why women's mental illness was treated different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelKWalsh (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Comments on Peer Review and Draft

MetaFeta777 this is a great review, thanks very much for your feedback. You really highlight the positive aspects of your peer's work very well, and I appreciate how encouraging and supportive you are. There are a few other areas I would have touched on for grammar/proofreading, but overall you've given your peer lots to think about and work on. Good job! 17/20 (18, -1 for late).

RachelKWalsh I want to make sure you know that you are one of the lucky students who received two peer reviews! One is below, and the other is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RachelKWalsh/Disability_in_ancient_Rome/AncientWeapons_Peer_Review You can feel free to copy-and-paste the latter review onto this talk page if you'd like everything on one page. You've made some excellent additions to your draft, I'm really excited about your topic and everything you're doing with this page. Both of your peer reviewers give you great suggestions for improvement that you should absolutely take into consideration - adding citations, organizing the notable people section (maybe not in a bulleted list?), and expanding the section on mental health (although I know you had issues finding sources for this, but check out this page on gendered mental illness). The most important aspect for your next round of edits will be to proofread and rewrite some of your sentences for clarity. I strongly suggest that you make a quick visit to the writing centre for some tips on straightforward, simple writing - sometimes having someone else look over your work makes all the difference in the world! I think some of the info in the legal section can be condensed. Also, this is a very random connection, but many years ago I made a webpage with research on 'spectacular' human bodies, and I think you might find it interesting for your work here, specifically the page on the 'monster-market' (link here) and on emotional reactions to these bodies (link here). At the very least, mine the page for the primary sources! Grade: 14/20 (18/20, -4 late). Gardneca (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 1

I think your draft is excellent. You have done a great job of filling in the gaps left in the original article. Knowing how some disabilities were seen as more preferential to others, and how disabled people would have been accommodated is invaluable information for an article like this and you added very detailed information on how the lives of disabled people would have been like. You covered the topic in a very broad and detailed manner in everything from how certain disabilites were viewed from lower or upper classes, and how people would be purpously disfigured for entertainment. Ideas and questions on the topic of physical disabilities that I never would have even considered have been answered.

The only criticism I can offer is that you use 'there' instead of 'their' in the 'Medical opinion' section. You should also capitalize the word 'roman' on the sixth paragraph of the 'Roman laws on disability' section. I feel like you should elaborate on Spurius Carvilius' disability. It is clear he was wounded in battle but it is not specifically stated hat happened to him to make him disabled.

You have physical disabilities very well documented, but there is little information here on mental disabilities. It seems like this article is generally focused on physical disabilities so I could be asking for something beyond the scope of the article, but I feel adding any information you can find on mental disabilities would improve the article overall.

Overall, your draft is very well put together and is a total improvement over the original article. Well done! --MetaFeta777 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]