Instructor Feedback on Peer Review/Draft 2

MetaFeta777 thanks for your peer review! You point out great suggestions for improvement of the article overall, and you've clearly spent the time looking at your peer's progress. Grade: 15/15.

Jmorley89 you did a really great job of cleaning up your draft and incorporating grammatical/stylistic suggestions from the 1st peer review, so well done! However, I don't see many additions to the content (based on the suggestions that I made following the first peer review), despite the email communication we had. This would have given your 2nd peer reviewer a lot more to work with. You have your work cut out for you in terms of adding content to your final article, so make sure to put a strong effort in over these next few weeks. Review the suggestions made by your peer reviewers and by me, and incorporate them all (or provide good reasons for not addressing them). Grade: 7/15 (11/15 - 4 late submission on March 13).

Response to review: Thanks for addressing your 2nd peer reviewers comments in such a timely manner, but I would like to see more detail from you, especially since there are a lot of content improvements to be addressed and you only mention the citations and 'polishing up' your article. What content will you be adding to further improve this page? Please let me know, I want to see a more directed plan from you in terms of adding content. Grade: 7/10.

Gardneca (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2:

Your article is coming along nicely so far, but I can think some improvements can be made regarding citation. The mention of the Servian Wall likely being built after the Gauls' invasion in the 'History' section is uncited. It would be useful to know where that belief comes from and why someone would think that. Is it just a theory, or is there archeological evidence? Explaining that would be helpful for the article. I see you also crossed a sentence in the 'Usage' section out, presumably because a citation is needed for it. If you can find a source mentioning Augustus dividing Rome into regions based on the Servian Wall, then you could make that information legitimate. In terms of balance, I'm wondering if more information could be added to the 'History' and 'Present day' sections. Consider questions such as 'Was the Servian Wall ever attacked?' or 'Is there any pieces of the wall in interesting places today?' and see if you can find some credible sources to back them up. Small but interesting things like that can go a long way into making a more balanced article. Aside from that, there is a spelling error in the 'Construction' section that says 'thedefenders'. You have done a fine job of correcting mistakes in the article, but I'm wondering if more information can be added. Hopefully my previous questions to consider can point you in the right direction. --MetaFeta777 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO PEER REVIEW 2: Thank you for the comments. I will be adding more citations to the article and polishing it up before it is released. Jmorley89 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 1

Rmac5 thanks for your review, and for your suggestions - all are very good, and I appreciate that you mentioned something from each section. In your next round, do the same but try to add some overarching comments about the entirety of the page and its presentation as a whole - what do you like, what's missing, how's the organization of the sections and presentation, etc. Did you check any of the citations for reliability? Take your review to the next level with these steps in the next round. Good work! Grade: 17/20 Gardneca (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorley89 good work adding content so far, but I want to see a lot more info added in the next round, particularly: if there's anything else you can find on the building of the wall itself; more info about why it was attributed to Servius if it doesn't date to him; see if you can find any citations proving the Hannibal connection so that you don't have to entirely remove that section; and add citations to your history paragraphs since there are none right now. You might want to check out all the existing pages for the gates and see if there's any relevant info to be added to the wall's page. Make sure to incorporate your reviewer's suggestions, since they are all helpful. Good work so far! Grade: 16/20 Gardneca (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 1:

Lead: It might be good to include a bit more information about other some other aspects like the construction and modern day remains. You could have a sentence like: The Servian Wall was made of volcanic tuff, and pieces can still be found around the city.

History: I'm not sure you need to add the "was supposedly", as I think it was still named after him regardless of whether he had anything to do with the construction. Citations should also be added to the sentences in this section. Also, "extant" should be "extent".

Construction: This line should be rephrased as it basically says the same thing twice: "After the conquest of Veii, the Romans used the superior Grotta Oscura tuff that was quarried by the now enslaved Veientines[3], presumably after its defeat by Rome in the 390s.[4]"

Maybe try "After Rome defeated Veii in the 390s, they began to use the superior Grotta Oscura tuff that the Veientines quarried."

Also not sure why you removed the line about defensive war engines as there seems to be a citation in the "Present Day" section that would support that. Rmac5 (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your peer review! Jmorley89 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]