User talk:Jway04/sandbox

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 2

JamarcusW thanks for your review. You point out some typos and areas where your peer has been successful, but in my email to you with instructions for your second peer review I specifically asked you not to use the form that Wikipedia generates, but to go through your peer's work methodically and provided detailed edits. Make sure to read instructions carefully! Grade: 9/15 (10, -1 late submission).

Jway04 first and foremost a reminder to add your response to Peer Review # 2 (from my email on March 17): By tomorrow, March 18 (ideally, but let me know if you can't for whatever reason): 1) Respond to your 2nd peer review in your sandbox talk page (10 points). Make all proofreading, grammatical, spelling, and structural changes. Make revisions if you have time, but in addition to the changes listed above, you must at acknowledge that you have seen the 2nd peer reviewer's suggestions, and write a brief sentence or two explaining what you will add to your article for the final draft and how your final article will be improved. You are currently losing marks for this, so please do it ASAP!

Thanks for adding the citations, but it looks like you stopped halfway through and didn't return to your work. Your sandbox's formatting is off, and some of the citations at the bottom link to the actual Wikipedia article, so it's really hard to understand what you've contributed. Again, it looks like you began this but never finished it, since I don't see any edits for proofreading, rewriting for clarity, or additional content added. What happened? You have a few weeks to get this article ready to put in the live space, so get to work and don't let this flop now! Grade: 9.5/15 Gardneca (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography

Jway04 make sure to add all of your annotations to your sandbox, not just the citations (ie copy and paste what you handed in to class here in your sandbox). Your sources are good and I like the direction you're taking with the page, but be careful not to replicate the existing Antonine Plague page - it has a separate entry for a reason, so don't get too carried away. Remember, you can always edit multiple pages, so if you find info that isn't even on the main page for the Antonine Plague...add it! I also like the addition of Killgrove's source, just make sure to emphasize the 'disease' portion that results from lack of proper nutrition/diet. When you exhaust these sources, you might want to look at some of the many sources that are already listed on the page and expand some of the topics (Malaria, for example). There's a lot to be done with this page, so make sure you have a clear, organized plan going forward so you don't get too overwhelmed! Good work. Grade: 9/10 (one point deducted for not having annotations in sandbox). Gardneca (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

-your work on including information on The Antonine Plague is very well done and filled with information. I think that nothing significant is lacking from that sub header and that it does a great job of detailing the history of the plague.

-The sub header of air pollution is a very clever idea. Analyzing ancient settings through modern lenses of science is a luxury that we have today. It's important though, that in doing this, that proper citations and sources are included, even for scientific observations.

-the same that was said above can be said about the sub header for population density. I like your thinking and in my opinion, these sub headers are great ideas to contribute to the article as well as to our analysis of the historical setting.

-the increased bulk to the intro fits perfectly into the guidelines of a wikipedia article, and is a job well done on your part. It doesn't read as being too preachy or droning and establishes the article more so than before.

"disease was a harsh reality of life." - not that I doubt your judgment, but I believe that this constitutes a value judgment. More neutral language might be something like; "disease was a dangerous factor of life"

"the most infinite of plagues during this period was the Antonine Plague (165-180 CE)" - The word infinite as it is used here is not exactly clear as to what it is meant to imply. Maybe simpler language could resolve this.

"The Roman Empire has garnered itself a mostly positive reputation for the complicated sewer systems that ran underneath many of it's cities." - I think this is too general, it reads as something that is trying too hard to cover the possible tracks of the sentence that could lead it to being debunked. I don't think this is necessary for such an uncontroversial statement, or a statement that would otherwise be understood with an appropriate context sans the tracks covering. Maybe something as simple as; "the Roman empire held a positive reputation for its complicated sewer systems" could deliver the same message but with much more efficiency and without the confusion.

"in 312 BCE [1]. through Rome.[2]This throughout the city.[3] " - consistent syntax for citations is important. I'm fairly certain that a space after the period, then the citation is standard for wikipedia. It seems as if it is just a result of rough drafting, so I'm sure it's no issue.

- Under the sub header "Roman Sewage and Aqueduct Systems" you give an account of Roman lead consumption. This is a different point altogether and I think thus warrants its own sub header.

-the sub header "population density" makes argumentative claims without a source as to why disease spread as sever as it did. A source would be required to include this in an encyclopedia article like on wikipedia.

"The Antonine Plague is certainly one of the most infamous plagues in Roman history." - this too, is a value judgment. If you were to use a quote instead, of a historian in a peer reviewed journal, then it would be acceptable to include in an article.

"The air in Rome was undoubtedly polluted," - a citation will be needed for a claim like this, and the word undoubtedly shouldn't be used, unless in a quote, as it appears to be a substitution for an actual source.

"The Romans were not correct with all of the herbs uses, but a placebo effect possibly still made some of the herbs useful." - is this an argument that you are making yourself that you included in the article? you'll unfortunately have to use a source that makes this argument, as arguments themselves cannot be supplied to encyclopedias by their editors. Both this point, and the one I made before are however still great ideas for inclusions to the article, and with a proper source I think that they would be great perspectives to include in your work.

Overall, your article reads like a clever and insightful means to include modern scientific analysis to the topic, which is an incredibly valuable addition to the article. I think that you certainly have the means to make this a great article and that you will do well as you refine your work. I can tell that some of your article has still yet to be perfectly touched up such that it would meet your standards of work and that you are going to polish before publishing it, (especially on syntax errors) which isn't a huge issue given the time we still have left. Great job so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizer25 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 1/Peer Review - Professor Gardner Comments

Sizer25 thanks for your helpful peer review! You have pointed out very important areas that the student can improve, and all of your criticism is constructive. There could have been a bit more organization, perhaps working through the article methodically from beginning to end. This is something to keep in mind for your next peer review. Also, don't forget to sign your name with 4 tildes (~) next time. Overall, wonderful job, thank you! Grade: 19/20.

Jway you've added a really great amount of information to your Wikipedia article, and I'm really impressed with the sheer volume of content for several different sections. Great work in that regard. However, there are two major issues to tackle before the next round of peer reviews, both of which your peer reviewer touched on: citations and clarity in writing. The lack of citations throughout is a major problem, because your peer reviewer has no way to verify the accuracy of your work or to check for plagiarism. This must be addressed before your second round of peer review. In terms of proofreading, there are many areas where your writing can be improved (ie better suited for Wikipedia) by focusing on reworking your sentences to be simple and straightforward. For example, your sentence "Trash objects could range from discarded household items to actual human waste, meaning contamination chances were very high" can be rewritten as "Rates of contamination were very high because...". I recommend a quick visit to the campus writing centre, where tutors will be able to help you write clear, concise, direct statements. So, for the next week please do the following: 1) read through and incorporate all of the changes suggested by your peer reviewer; 2) add proper, reliable citations throughout your draft; 3) proofread and rework your sentences, focusing on clarity above all; 4) keep adding content. Please comment when you have seen this and confirm. Good work so far! Grade: 17/20. Gardneca (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Gardner, I'll keep those things in mind Jway04 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Jway04Jway04 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #2

Whose work are you reviewing?

Jway04

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jway04/sandbox

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

For the most part it does. The lead discusses modern technologies that provide more data about certain disease , I was unable to find further information on that in the article

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise and too the point. The topic alone is already enough information for the reader to know what it will be about. The lead does explain more of what to expect when reading on.

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information and are the sources current?

Yes the content is backed up by reliable sources. And is all current within the last 10 years.

Is the content added well-organized

The sections are well-organized. The only thing that seems out of place is how the "Diet" section is under hygiene although without making a whole new area , it does fit there.

Is the content added neutral?

Yes the content is neutral and nowhere in the article does it seem like the writer has bias opinions .

Is the content added well-written

I was able to understand exactly what was trying to be said through text with no problem and Im not the biggest reader around, So I would say it is fantastic.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

In the "Air Pollution" Section I was a bit confused where you wrote "only adding to the n=concerns for public health.". Im not sure if it is just a typo or I am missing something.
The "plague of Cyprian" section, hemorrhage is mispelled as "haemorrhages"
In the "Antonine Plague" the second sentence has a grammar error "returning form campaign".

Images & Media

There is currently no images present. Maybe an image of a drawing showing what the pollution would have looked like or possibly how the public bath houses would of looked like as that is something the average reader may not know.

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article

The content added definetly improves the overall quality and adds alot of info in the Hygiene sections which helps have a better understanding of how pollution was during imperial rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamarcusW (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]