Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 2

143737k thanks for your feedback on your peer's article. It is helpful that you went through each section separately, but a lot of your comments are written in a very stream-of-consciousness manner, and it's a bit hard to follow. Also, I think your peer was hoping for a bit of proofreading/copyediting help. However, all of the suggestions you gave for improvement are good and considerate and will certainly contribute to the overall improvement of the article. Grade: 13/15.

PolluxMariusPetrus I see you've already considered your peer's feedback and responded accordingly, so thank you for your promptness in that! It is obvious that you think very carefully about all the content on your page and have ruminated on every word, line, and citation. While this will contribute to a great article in the end, you may have overthought some aspects - specifically, putting separate copies of your draft in your sandbox has resulted in a confusing presentation. For example, because you are trying to add duplicate citations to several versions of your draft this results in an error on the page and it's actually pretty difficult to verify your citations. Scroll down to the very bottom of your draft page and you'll see that all of the replicated citations are blank. This means that one has to jump back and forth between versions of the draft to check the citations. It's also confusing as to which draft you're working on. Remember, Wikipedia saves everything, so the first thing I want you to do is pare your sandbox down to just the current version of your draft - if you want to be able to access notes you've made, or bibliography, etc. put that in your talk page. Likewise, because of the clutter I'm having a hard time figuring out which of the questions that you've asked me have been answered - tidying this up will make everything clearer and I'll be able to give you better feedback. I'll try to answer all your questions here, but please let me know if I've missed anything.

Are you still looking for English translations of the Annales, Plutarch, and Fabius Pictor? If so, I can help you with this, please respond here and let me know.
No, your lead does not need a lot of citations, you will cite the bulk of the information in the main article
Etymology question addressed at the bottom of this page
You wrote "Also I am not sure what you are talking about there being only one source for the Roman art and literature section. I just checked it and it has four different sources two of which were added by myself though I admittedly do rely heavily on Mathisen in that section." - I don't know where I wrote that, but I have no recollection of this and can't find it anywhere.
In another section of comments, you say "I know that there is more information out there when it comes to Rhea Silvia in academia and contemporary literature, so I thought I would save some work for future Wikipedians of re dividing the sections in the future, even if at the moment it still remains a rather thin page." This last point merits mention especially since you still have a few weeks to work on your draft, and you definitely should still be working on adding content. While you've made very good improvements already to your draft by removing uncited material, reorganizing, and rewriting for clarity, I'd like to see you add a lot more content from the sources you've found. Part of this assignment is to gather academic sources and populate the page with reliable scholarship - you've done a bit of this but I'd like to see more. Have a bit of fun with the research and writing aspect, and keep up the hard work! Grade: 13/15 Gardneca (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 1

History2112 thanks for your review! You point out helpful suggestions like expanding the lead and filling out content, but there seems to have been a bit of confusion in terms of what your peer added versus what was already on the article (the uncited Ennius/Pictor sentence in the lead and the lit reference sections that are bolded are only bolded because your peer wants to remove them) - make sure the notes are read through carefully so you aren't given them irrelevant advice. For your next round, try to be more specific with the feedback you give, especially for recommendations for improvement. Overall, good job! Grade: 17/20 Gardneca (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PolluxMariusPetrus your peer review can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PolluxMariusPetrus/Rhea_Silvia/History2112_Peer_Review Please feel free to copy it over to this page if you want. Please take your reviewer's suggestions into consideration for your next draft, including adding more information to the lead (and try to track down the Ennius/Pictor references instead of deleting this part) and bolstering the existing content. You've done a good job of adding content so far. What you need to work on for your next round of drafts is to: 1) add primary source passages to all of your citations from ancient authors (there are a few instances where you source a secondary source translation, you should leave this and add the passage number); 2) all of the sentences you want to delete should be investigated further before you remove them - for example, it's common knowledge that the VV's served for 30 years, you should be able to find a citation for this. In the pop culture/literature sections (which should be joined together as one), these can easily be researched for accuracy - a quick google search for Riordan's work will confirm this; 3) I'd love to see an expansion of the sentence you included under academia, this is important; 4) work on adding content and expanding the art section. Great work so far! Grade: 19/20 Gardneca (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography

PolluxMariusPetrus good work so far. My only concern with your bibliography is that the Niebuhr source is from 1828, so make sure you don't rely to heavily on any arguments therein. All of the additions you plan on making are good, but it would be great if you could branch out and explore some modern scholarship on Rhea Silvia and what her role was in Roman antiquity. For this you'll want to look at more recent feminist myth and theory works, and here are a few to consult:

Arieti, J. A. (1997). Rape and Livy’s view of Roman History. Rape in antiquity, 209-29.
De Luce, J. (2005). Roman myth. The Classical World, 98(2), 202-205.
Lauriola, R. (2013). Teaching about the Rape of Lucretia: A Student Project. Classical World, 106(4), 682-687. (I know it says Lucretia, but Rhea Silvia is also mentioned).

Please let me know if you need help finding additional sources, and I look forward to seeing your work on this Wikipedia page! Grade: 10/10 Gardneca (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gardeneca. I sent you an email about some concerns i have with my wikipedia assignment (i have some confusion about the rough draft) PolluxMariusPetrus (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #2 143737K

Hello, Section 1 The Introduction has lots of info and lots of sources which is great. You may want to move some of that info into later sections and have your introduction be more of an overview. Additionally you could try making your introduction mention each of the sections so readers know what is in this article as opposed to reading the info in the intro.

Section 2 Etymology Very nice info in this section with all of it coming from the 1 source. This section is very information intensive I would recommend moving this further down as many readers would probably be more interested in the legend then all the nitty gritty.( Just re read and it says you deleted this section if possible you may want to try redoing this section with factual information all good if there isn't any.)

Section 3 Legend I like all the information you have added and all the sources backing up your information. It may be worth checking the original page and contacting whoever entered the sections you are deleting to see if they have sources that they just haven't listed properly. It isn't your job but it is possible that whoever added that info might just add it right back. Great section though really improved from the original.

Section 4 In Roman Art and Literature First large section only has 1 citation which may not be enough support however that is up to you. The additional info you added could almost be put into a list format but up to you again your formatting choice.

Section 5 Academia Very good idea to add an academia section however with only 1 sentence seems like it is almost out of place. May be worth finding more info or adding it to an additional info section.

Section 6 In Literature Again same as section before may be worth just making a general additional info section for all these small bits of info. May be worth taking the info they let for Doctor Who and searchign for a citation instead of deleting the info?

Overall very nice article just make sure not to delete information if it doesn't have citations right away try and search for info proving it. It is very unlikely someone wrote that information off of a whim more likely they just forgot to cite their info.

Cheers, 143737K 143737k (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gardeneca. I Just looked at the talk pages and I noticed two things. 1) The not only is the etymology of the name Rhea Silvia uncited, it appears to be the created as a result of people on Wikipedia trying to make an argument and a quick search has not been turned up anything on the matter. while this could be entirely true, to say that the name Rhea Silvia has this etymology is making an argument as as I am not much of a linguist, I am not the person to make it. So, since it not only plagiarizes, but also seems to be making an argument and I can't find anything that states that the etymology of the name is a fact, I still intend to remove it. 2) One thing I did find a tentative citation for is the torchwood citation. someone mentioned on the talk page a while ago that they found the episode and the exact time slot that the name "Rhea Silvia" is mentioned in torchwood, however, I am not sure where to find it online (I don't have torchwood on netflix) so I can't double check to see if the citation is accurate. What do you think I should do. insert the citation, dig deeper, mention it to the person on the talk page (well, i've already done that actually). any advice? PolluxMariusPetrus (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PolluxMariusPetrus make sure to tag me when you have questions so I get a notification - simply writing my username won't alert me, and I just saw this. Have you tried looking at the Oxford Classical Dictionary? It's available through our library website. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography as Mythology is available on the Perseus Project (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0104), with a search function - I recommend searching these to see if you can find anything about the etymology of her name. In fact, here's the direct link to the entry for Rhea (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DR%3Aentry+group%3D2%3Aentry%3Drhea-bio-1). As for the Torchwood reference, you definitely don't need to keep it if you're at all worried about it. The simple mention of her name (as opposed to her being a character) doesn't seem that significant to me. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll leave feedback on your draft shortly! Gardneca (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]