User talk:GbrooksPDXStudent/sandbox
Evaluations[edit]
4/20/2019 Evaluation by WavesOfAmur[edit]
- Points: 43.5/40
- Grade: 109%
Spelling/Grammar Exceeds Expectations (4.5)
Language Exceeds Expectations (4.5)
Organization Exceeds Expectations (4.5)
Coding Perfect (4.5)
Validity Meets Expectations (4)
Completion Exceeds Expectations (4.5) - You've done an amazing job, but I just wanted to point out something - as you've stated in the discussion page on D2L, you've edited certain parts of the page. Could we know exactly whether the parts that are displayed on the draft are yours? Reason being is because, in comparing with the original published article already present, it seems like you've integrated some parts and edited others - I think it would be very useful to have a distinction between the original and the changes, much like Joshua has in his edit. It's not because it's incomprehensible, it's just for exact clarity so that everyone knows what has been changed. Otherwise, amazing job!
Relevance Exceeds Expectations (4.5)
Sources Exceeds Expectations (4.5) - I really like how your sources also use the city's own website in Germany to dig up some basic historical info about the site it's located on - very smart find!
Citations Meets Expectations (4) - Your citations are really neat and organized spectacularly, though it looks as if it might be possibly formatted slightly incorrectly? Examples such as the citation #4 and #5 having quotations around the authors' names - if that's what the auto citation "formatter" thing on Wikipedia does/asks for by default, then disregard what I'm saying. Either way, I wouldn't bat an eye too much for that kind of minuscule detail, but it's just a small thing I noticed, and someone experienced on Wikipedia might find "inappropriate" or some such - either way, excellent sources!
References Meets Expectations (4)
1/24/2018 Evaluation by User:BethanyJJohnson[edit]
Points: 40 Grade: 100%
Spelling/Grammar - 4.5, no mistakes that I see
Language - 4, well written
Organization - 4
Coding - 4
Validity - 4
Completion - 3, is there more substance to be added?
Relevance - 4, no irrelevant information added
Sources - 4.5, love that you added an image!
Citations - 4
References - 4
BethanyJJohnson (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
4.21.19 Evaluation by Joshua Gramley[edit]
Spelling/Grammar meets standards. A potential spot for correction: you write "like the city walls who were built..."; since the city walls are an inanimate thing, it feels like you might want to swap "who" for "which" (unless I'm just not reading your sentence right!) Also, I might consider throwing a comma in after "Roman imperial governors resided in the city," since the "and it became..." which follows seems like it could stand on its own as a sentence. Actually, there are a couple of other places where you could use commas for the same reason (e.g., after "river Rhine," after "Ara Ubiorum," although I would probably also swap a "which" for that latter "and," since what follows just elaborates on the function of the Ara Ubiorum).
Language meets or exceeds standards. Nothing to say here, really; seems like you've got the tone down just fine!
Organization meets standard. Here's a thought for you, though: how would you feel about reorganizing paragraph 2 to be a little more chronological (i.e., starting with 3rd/4th century, proceeding to present day)? To me, this would read a little more easily.
Coding exceeds standards.
Validity meets/exceeds standards. No sketchy sources, everything you've claimed here seems plausible.
Completion exceeds standards. You have more than three sources, and what appears to be about a paragraph worth of edits.
Relevance exceeds standards. You found some really cool information for this one! It makes the article better, without adding too much.
Sources meets/exceeds standards. Looks like some solid governmental/major cultural institution standards, which seem appropriate for the material.
Citations exceeds standards for the material you added. I see that last paragraph there...any chance you can improve it by finding some sources to confirm what the last person claimed here? Seems like some useful additional housework, though it'd be going above and beyond.
References exceeds standards.
Nice work on this one, Garett! Joshua Gramley (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
5/3/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright[edit]
DrMichaelWright (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Points: 35.5/40
- Grade: 88.75%
Spelling/Grammar[edit]
Meets standard
Language[edit]
Meets standard
Organization[edit]
Meet standard.
Coding[edit]
Meet standard. The word 'altar' is linked from twice, which is excessive.
Validity[edit]
Nearly meets standard. It is a little difficult to trace your paraphrases to the original texts in the sources.
Completion[edit]
Meets standard.
Relevance[edit]
Meets standard. This is pretty good stuff!
Sources[edit]
Does not meet standard. The first source is very good, nearly a tertiary source, but not a bad one. The second source is okay. Where's your third source? Three of those in your list of references were created by previous editors.
Citations[edit]
Meet standard. These are fairly good.
References[edit]
Does not meet standard. The references could have maintained the style of the preceding references, for example with the date format. This could have been helped by making more thorough use of Wikipedia's citation engine, such as was done for the following version of that first citation (see references below[1]). Text in references should never use all caps, unless it is an acronym, which is not the case for the Römisch-Germanisches Museum page.
- ^ Stillwell, Richard; MacDonald, William L.; McAlister, Marian Holland (1976). "The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites: Colonia Agrippinensis (Cologne) Germany". Perseus Digital Library. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Retrieved 3 May 2019.