User talk:IamEmpressDowager/Black soup

Peer Review First and foremost it is clear that you’ve made significant improvements to this page. At first glance the sections you have developed are both interesting and make sense. I’ve broken my review down into suggestions for each section here.

The lead: Your opening sentence “The black soup was a regional soup cuisine of ancient Sparta” is a bit repetitive since it uses the word soup twice. I don’t think you need the second use of the word here before “cuisine”. “However, no original recipe of the dish survives today, .” Just a few grammar and neutrality things here. “However” does not really need to be here as it is more of a narrative sounding word. There is also a comma at the end of the sentence that should be removed.

Etymology: “Several other non-Spartan sources that have also mentioned this dish were fragmentary” word choice here feels a little bit awkward. I would suggest changing it to: “Several other non-Spartan fragmentary sources have also mentioned this dish.”

“Occasionally, sources consist of indirect references to this dish but are still useful in testifying the soup's genuineness.” Also just another case of awkward word choice, possible change to “Some sources consist of indirect references to this dish and are useful for attesting to the existence of the soup.”

Ingredients: “The ancient author indicates that the elders would…” This sentence slips into a less neutral, more narrative style. I can tell you probably did it to sound less repetitive, but I believe when it comes to wikipedia it is best to avoid a narrative approach. This keeps things as neutral as possible. Try “Plutarch indicates that the elders would…” or replace Plutarch with the title of the text the info is coming from.

It would be great to end the third paragraph in this section with another source, even if it’s just a repeated source from earlier in the paragraph or section. Perhaps this is just a personal preference, but when I read a sentence with so much new information that does not include a source it causes me to doubt if the information is trustworthy.

“The pork were paid for using the money collected” small grammar correction, swap “were” out for “was”

“According to Plutarch, each Spartan mess member's monthly contribution included not only different kinds of produce, but also cash and the amount was specified as "ten Aiginetan obols.”” Wording feels a bit awkward at the end of the sentence here. Maybe make a new sentence after cash and try something like: “...but also cash. The amount of cash was specified as “ten Aiginetan obols”.

Notoriety “The Spartan black soup did not remain a secret to the other Greeks during antiquity and was undoubtedly known.” Wording here is awkward and a bit repetitive. I would suggest revising - maybe something along the lines of “The Spartan black soup was known to the other Greeks during antiquity.”

Modern Associations: Perhaps switch the order of the sentences to keep with the chronology of when these two figures lived.

Highlights: Your etymology section is well-researched and informative, it helps to add a feeling of legitimacy to your article seeing the use of the ancient greek characters.

Though the history section is short it is very interesting and important to include.

The “Occasions of consumption” section was perfect! It gave lots of information in a completely neutral style.

You draw on very interesting anecdotes in the “Notoriety” section. This helps to give a great view of not only the black soup itself but also how it was percieved.

The “Modern associations” sections brings associations which are relevant and interesting.

Overall Impressions: You have done an excellent job fleshing out an article on such a niche subject with so few sources. Overall my comments were very small and nitpicky things which can be easily corrected, and simply required another set of eyes reading over the article to pick up on. A few times you slipped into a more narrative or essay style writing as opposed to simply presenting the facts. Though this does not necessarily make an article any less neutral, it can make an otherwise well done page present more as a story than a collection of facts. The ingredients section is well done because you explain not only a list of ingredients, but how we know them and how they are obtained, which I feel like is not often explored in full on topics like this. If you want to add more sections in later edits you may be able to add a “further reading” section linking to other articles such as Laconophilia (relevant because you touched on figures from history who idolized the broth and the spartan way of being). You may also be able to add an “in pop culture” section, and check if it is ever mentioned or shown in media about Sparta or Greece. If you want to keep expanding the page you could potentially include a section on other staples of Spartan diet or any other ceremonial foods we know of, but up to you if you think this would stray too far from the initial topic. Ultimately I think you’ve done a great job handling this article and topic, just make sure to give things an extra proofread!

Camsara99 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Draft/Peer Review 1

IamEmpressDowager excellent work on your first draft. I'm thoroughly impressed with how much work you've put into this page, and how many sources you've found (especially fragmentary sources, that's no easy feat)! I agree with your reviewer that some of your grammar/syntax needs some refining, but that is exactly why we go through the peer review process. Take their suggestions for improvement and incorporate them, these will help strengthen your page even more. I agree that the 'history' section is quite short - perhaps you were already thinking about expanding this, but I think also the second paragraph of the 'etymology' section should be moved here. Also, consider changing the 'history' section to 'sources' and you can discuss all the mentions of the soup and their contemporary circumstances/biases. I agree with your reviewer's suggestions to expand the modern association section/explore the possibility of a 'pop culture' section (could be one large section), especially since there are a lot of popular websites/recipes for 'black broth' if you google it. Honestly, though, I'm truly astounded by how much research you've already done on this topic, and I think this article will be a candidate for a GA status when you're finished with it! Grade: A+

Camsara99 great feedback, thanks for your comments and suggestions. The proofreading is not nitpicky at all, it's exactly what you ought to be doing to help your peers improve their work. Everyone needs different insights, and although your peer made it difficult for you to critique the sheer amount of content they added, you certainly dug deep and found several ways to offer help/advice to improve their page. Well done! Grade: A+

Notes to my second peer-reviewer

For this second draft, I have focused on adding and expanding my content with some new examples from different primary sources. I have also updated my bibliography accordingly. I have made some changes regarding copyediting in responding to my first peer reviewer's comments too. I have also chosen to combine parts of the section on "Etymology" and "History" together into one big section called "Sources." I have added a new section, called "Extended Readings." For my final draft, I will be focusing on reading some more secondary scholarly articles on the topic and see if they can add any new information to my page. I also have a writing appointment (with someone not studying Classics) this Thursday to get a second pair of eyes to look at my content and to make sure that the page can be easily understood by anyone reading it. IamEmpressDowager (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Update I have also put all parts that I had added for my second draft in bold, I hope this will make your life a bit easier! I made grammar changes throughout the entire page, as a side note. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions! IamEmpressDowager (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Two Overall I really enjoyed your contributions to the page and like the direction it is going in. You did a great job adding a lot of different sources and citing everything! One small issue I noticed throughout the page was when you were citing scholarly sources and would say that "opinion is..." or "it is likely" and wouldn't state in the text whose opinion it is. A person without a scholarly background might take these as facts rather than an informed opinion or hypothesis so I think it would help by adding in the text where this information is coming from. While you have these cited (which is great) it can still be confusing to a reader. On the talk page of your sandbox, I saw your notes and see that you want to add more secondary scholarship to the page. I think this is great, but just consider what I mentioned above because scholarly sources can be confusing (fact vs opinion) for non-academic people. You also mentioned having a writing appointment with someone without a background in Classics, I think that's a great idea! They will be able to give you a lot of insight into whether or not the page needs more context than is being provided. As I mentioned at the beginning of the copy editing, expanding the introduction would help attract readers and make them more informed about the topic right away. The few sentences at the intro are the only thing people will typically see when they google the subject and see the blurb before opening the link so it's best to have the most relevant info there as possible. You do a great job showing the primary sources and acknowledging how they contradict each other sometimes. You do a specifically good job of this in the Occasions of Consumption section in the second paragraph! Overall you did a great job and the page looks really good! I look forward to seeing the finished product in a few weeks. BeckAnn B (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)