User talk:Numouno/sandbox

You're off to a terrific start with this draft, so what I'm suggesting are minor edits:

because you're discussing it as a single mss, I think the correct subject verb agreement would be Trier Gospels was rather than were (as a medieval art historian, that's how I see it used in sentences about gospel book mss)
Scribes would be more accurate than Authors as a subhead (technically the gospel bk writers are the authors)
No doubt you were going to fine-tune it all anyway, but this part in particular needs some clarification: "Insular scribe and artist, as well as, some Mediterranean inspired art"
similarly, add "styles" or a similar word after "Merovingian and Insular" at end of that paragraph
For the content section, you can leave out

This Gospel contains the books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. since you mention it earlier

respectively instead of respectfully
THis part makes an important point

The last style is Italian and it was called Mediterranean. This style helped put the Frankish church in a better relationship with Rome. so wordsmith a little more

maybe give an example of a similar image to anchor the point :Then there is a portrait of Matthew that follows extremely closely with previous Roman manuscripts that were produced with the same Mediterranean style
fortunately there are already some images of the mss in Wikimedia Commons, so it should be easy to add some of them to your entry.
ideally you'd have more than one source, but I understand since it's the main book on the topic why you went that route
you do a good job of adding links throughout to other Wikipedia entries

Please touch base with any questions!

AMcClanan (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation

Your page seems to be formatted well so far. I have only a couple of suggestions and comments. I notice there is only one resource for your information. I thought this might be an issue, but I see that our professor has already touched on that. I would love to see examples of the illustrations from this manuscript. Images would add quite a bit of interest to the page, and also help the viewer to recognize the piece in the future. The links all seem to work fine, and overall, I think the page is coming along nicely. I look forward to seeing it published! Jodijansen (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Jodijansen[reply]

Really great start! The first question I have while reading it, though, is who is Thomas. Maybe a brief explanation by the first mention of his name. Is he someone we should know of or just some person lost to history, I don't know. Breaking it up a little bit could improve the flow but overall, it is very informativeOttangel (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

From Prof McClanan, 12/3

Quick note: I'm not seeing the Unit 2 edit a Wikipedia entry (1 pt), so please email me if I overlooked it, thank you.

AMcClanan (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Prof McClanan, 12/7

Thanks for your work on this expansion.

AMcClanan (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]