User talk:CassiusTheNicaeaKid/sandbox

Peer Review - Five Column Monument (Matt N)

Hey Nicole!

You've done a great job on this so far! Everything is detailed well with good sources. I like how detailed you are with the remaining column base and the photos you have for each side.

The only suggestions I might have for you is to make sure you cite your references properly in the Wiki format (highlight what you want to site in the editing section and then press the "Cite your sources" button on the bottom. This will make a link to the bottom of the page for the source instead of having it in text and help make a self-made bibliography on the bottom of the page.

You might also want to think about something that I still need to do on my page as well and make some external links to a few pages that might be relevant to the monument. Kate had a few good ones including a link to a numismatic page with photos of some coins that had the image of the temple of Isis on them.

Otherwise, great job! Especially when a few of us, including myself, allowed this to sneak up on us!

Matt.

Peer Review: Columbaria of Vigna Codini

Nicole, Well done so far! Lots of great information and the article is laid out well. Here are some suggestions on content and grammar:

Replace "span of use" (a bit cumbersome) with lifespan.
"...Via Appia, which was the traditional placement of the monumental tombs of elite Republican families..." (instead of a traditional placement - more specific).
Link each initial mention of the emperors, like Augustus, "Tiberian", and "Hadrianic". Also, I'd stay away from relative dating of an emperor's reign. Give exact years.
When you bring in "the more inclusive nature of the Mausoleum", make sure you give a bit of context. Your subsequent explanation of the inclusive nature of the columbaria is great, so something like that for the Mausoleum of Augustus would be helpful!
Terminus ante quem is a technical term that may not be understood by those without a Latin background (like me!). There is a Wikipedia page for this term, so maybe link it. Or follow with the English translation.
When you're dealing with two "conflicting" sources (i.e. Borbonus and Coarelli), I'd stay away from directly naming them in opposition to each other. The two viewpoints can be tucked away and identified properly in the footnotes. If I read the Wikipedia editing guide correctly, we should stay away from persuasive arguments (i.e. "he dismisses" and "he maintains this position"). Does this make sense?
Add pictures of you can!

Good luck with the rest, you got this! Lschrott (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]