User talk:Jeremyseti
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Wyoming/Architectural_History_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Jeremyseti, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]I think that the edits you made to the Columns pages is really good. I like the variety of sources that you have added, and they seem to be good sources as well. I think that the depth of the information that you added really helps with this article, especially since it is such a broad topic. I think that the information in the structures part of the article is especially useful for this article, and it is professionally done and well written.
The only thing that I noticed is some of the sentence structure in this area could be worded differently so it reads a little better. I couldn't figure out if all of these changes were you, (Sorry a little technologically challenged.) So I've just added it here as a suggestion.
The original. "This was done to the columns to add visual interest to them. The ionic order and the corinthian orders are the only column styles that have fillets and flutes. The doric style has flutes but not fillets. Doric flutes are connected at a sharp point where the fillets are located on ionic and corinthian order columns."
I would consider either changing the wording of the first sentence or even taking it out altogether and maybe inserting it as part of a different sentence. When I was reading, this sentence really tripped me up as far a flow of the article goes. Maybe just changing "This" to mentioning the specific thing you're talking about.
For the second sentences, I would just change up the structure a little bit. I would personally write it as something like this: Both the Ionic and Corinthian orders have fillets and flutes. The doric style only has flutes, that are connected at a sharp point, where the fillets would normally be found on the Ionic and Corinthian columns.
Other than a little bit of word-y problems I thought that you did really well! You can tell that you did a lot of research for this project, it's very well put together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwolz (talk • contribs) 01:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]The additions to this page are concise and factual. They leave little to be desired in terms of additional content, however the sentence structure could possibly benefit from adjustments to the language. Many of the sentences start out using the same words when referring to the columns, such as "Its". This somewhat distracts from what is otherwise very direct and informational text.
The sources, due to the fact that they focus primarily on other articles throughout wikipedia, help keep the information consistent. By being able to jump to other articles, facts are reinforced and explained in greater detail. The organization and clarity is top notch, with the list being comprehensive for all intents and purposes. Pictures may have gone a long way in terms of illustrating just what each order looks like, as well as help define their individual characteristics. This is less of a problem and more of a nitpick, especially since simply clicking the provided links alleviate this issue.
Overall, the information provided is organized and direct, thanks to the ease of access to accompanying articles within wikipedia. Minor adjustments to the text, as well as additional imagery could go a long way to improving what is already a very solid article. Nice job. Mattriacanthosaurus (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]The first two sentences are redundant. The second sentence structure summaries the article really well. The first sentence makes the article appear as if you're writing about actual columns supporting buildings instead of the history of them like you intended Formatting is good and follows in an understanding layout. The headers however could be underlined to stand out against the bodies of your paragraphs.
The pop-up sources and citations directly support the facts. The facts are laid out in chronological order thus making it easier to understand. The information is straight to the point and backed up with well found resources.
Very good job in your project! Lil Beastea (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)