User talk:Emmaramsden/sandbox
Kim Peer Review[edit]
Lead -the sentence on being identified as the house of augustus seems redundant. -perhaps more could be said about the function of the building, who it was made by and for and when, unless that was the final line but I thought that was describing the date for the Domus Augustana, yea a bit confusing here. -Also a bit about who Augustus is and why it is attributed to him as the following sections don't immediately touch upon that. Excavation History -comprehensive, good. Literary Accounts of The House of Augustus -I think just literary accounts is enough for the title -'decreed that' -great primary sources, i'd just recommend contextualizing them as you discuss them. Construction -the entry sentence here contextualizing Octavian's purchase of the house perhaps should appear earlier on, maybe a separate brief subsection on historical context? just a quick & dirty of augustus, what's going on at this time, and as you discussed, how he acquires this space, before getting into what is made of it. -perhaps a subsubheading for it's location and surrounding buildings Plan -bullet points tons of good info, of course I'd suggest expanding them (which you already intend to I'm sure!) like providing a sentence of context for the wall paintings, libraries, its significance, the progression throughout the peristyles, etc. Temple of Apollo Palatinus -discussion of remains and myth, sounds like it will be good to me! Is there not a wiki page on it already though? If so I'd be sure to keep this part minimal and link it so your focus remains largely on the house itself Frescoes and Mosaics -perhaps rename more general like Decoration then discuss the distribution of decor (Wallace-Hadrill) and the frescoes and mosaics there (Dunbabin has a great book on mosaics in the Roman world as well, its in the reading room on the comps shelf!). Site Controversies -great discussion here, be sure to remain neutral! -I also wonder if it's be more useful to have a separate brief section on construction techniques or building materials or even some stuff back under decor like stylistic influences? Just thoughts! -good use of primary sources
-overall so much great info here!! only suggestions are to be sure to contextualize ancient sources, maybe reorganize things a bit, the flow of the article is a bit disjunct, also some sections take on a bit much, or certain themes are touched upon various times and should be grouped under their own subsection instead so in general I'd recommend reorganizing your layout and adding more subsections within your article. Looks great though! Best of luck!! Kimberlym21 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review: Saepta Julia[edit]
Good organization of the sections - I would move them around like this for clarity though: 1) Background 2) History 3) Evidence 4) Plan 5) Use.
Other stuff: expand bullet points and add relevant biblio and links to other monuments (e.g. Pantheon) and people (e.g. Cicero).
Perhaps add a picture of the current remains and a map of the Forum to explain where it is?