Response to Peer Review 2

Thanks to my peer reviewer for the helpful comments! Over the next few weeks I will expand on the Legislative Action section, and implement the suggestions from my peer reviewer (adding more hyperlinks, adding statements to explain that the Plebeians could not influence law prior to the concilium plebis and to explain what the comitia tributa populi is), and I will continue to make sure that everything I've written is clear and clarifying unclear statements. I will also comb through my text to make sure I haven't made any obvious mistakes and ensure that the text reads easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ18818 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Comments on Peer Review/Draft 2

Sizer25 Thanks for your review, and for your suggestions for improvement. Good work! Grade: 15/15

KJ18818 first and foremost a reminder to add your response to Peer Review # 2 (from my email on March 17): By tomorrow, March 18 : 1) Respond to your 2nd peer review in your sandbox talk page (10 points). Make all proofreading, grammatical, spelling, and structural changes (I see you've done some of these, good work). Make revisions if you have time, but in addition to the changes listed above, you must at acknowledge that you have seen the 2nd peer reviewer's suggestions, and write a brief sentence or two explaining what you will add to your article for the final draft and how your final article will be improved. Please do this ASAP!

KJ18818 Good work on this round of edits, I see you focused mostly on proofreading/editing rather than adding content this time around. Your peer reviewer has given you some suggestions to expand content, and I see from your comment at the top of your draft that you plan to expand the legislation section further. So, you're going to kill me for this, but my instructions for capitalization were definitely unclear and you're going to have to go back and redo some of the work you did there...so, the words comitia, plebeians, patricians, curia, etc should all be lowercase unless they are a part of an official title (and thus are proper nouns - Comitia Tributa, Tribune of the Plebs, Curia Julia, etc. If there are any terms you're unsure about, do not hesitate to ask! Sorry for the confusion. Keep up the good work! Grade: 14/15 Gardneca (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2

-The variety of translations given at the beginning of the article is a great way to help people understand what article they are reading despite what word they may personally know or use for the concillum plebis and to avoid confusion

-The history is detailed and thorough, I feel like I have a better understanding of the proper perspective on how the council came into fruition

-"At its formation, the Plebeian Council was organized by Curiae and served as an electoral council wherein plebeian citizens could vote to pass laws." Perhaps adding a statement to explain that plebs could not previously influence law could be useful so as to clearly show why the plebeian council was a novel and important idea of the lower classes.

-The first time that a concept not contained within your article, such as the Twelve Tables, is mentioned, it is a nice idea to hyperlink that things name to its wikipedia article so readers who aren't aware of what these things are can easily access the wiki page for it. This is true for people and places as well.

-for the Comitia Tributa Populi, include as the first sentence a sentence that describes what it is, so that the rest of your work has context as to the issue at hand.

-If possible, hyperlink the names of the scholars in this part of the article to their wiki articles if they have them. If they dont, you can still hyperlink them to hypothetical articles and the text will be red instead of blue. This helps to futureproof your article so that they will automatically link to the author's articles if one is created in the future.

-The legislative actions section is very well done. It is concise and divided so that I could easily process the information, and the header styles you used helps me to cement the ideas as separate concepts, almost like flash cards.

I think that this is a fantastic improvement to the article and that with just a little bit more busywork to fix up its presentation that it will be a very useful addition to wikipedia. I would strongly suggest using hyperlinks as much as possible (but also only where appropriate) in your article because it helps to make wikipedia easier to use for readers, and because sometimes just being able to read the first sentence of the introduction of an article, which appears when a hyperlink on wikipedia is hovered over, is enough to jog someones memory on a concept, allowing for them to have a better reading experience on wikipedia. I'm sure that your article will look very professional when you are done with it. 11 March 2020 (UTC)Sizer25 (talk)Sizer25

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 1

Hannahhelm thanks for your review and for your encouraging comments. It can be hard to review a draft that is really well done, because it makes it more difficult to find helpful critiques. I'd like to see a bit more detail for such a long draft, and if it doesn't seem like there is much to correct of in terms of grammatical corrections/citations (although you do mention a few), it might help to provide suggestions to improve the overall content or organization. Something to keep in mind for the next round of peer edits! Grade: 16/20 Gardneca (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJ18818 great work with this draft, you've added lots of content and your writing style is, for the most part, clear and straightforward. Please take your peer reviewer's suggestions into consideration. Since you've already added so much content, you'll want to turn your attention to combing through the entire article and make sure it presents itself as a cohesive whole, and that it is clear and concise. For example, sentences like 'Protection from the Patricians was also a vital matter, and the Tribunes of the Plebs were charged with protecting the plebeian interests against the patricians oligarchy.' can be a little unwieldy - consider rewriting to make your points shorter and more direct. Watch your consistency in capitalization, too (Twelve Tables, Tribes, Plebeians). I don't understand this sentence: "Although these theories are different, passages from Cicero and Livy conform, and do not conform with each." Finally, your footnotes seem to have lost their numbers (at the bottom of the page) and are appearing as bulleted points with no reference number - make sure to fix that before the page goes live. Address all of these concerns, and keep up the excellent work! Grade: 20/20 Gardneca (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi KJ18818!

I really enjoyed reading your article. You added a lot of comprehensive detail to the Function section of the article which really helps the reader understand the important of the Plebeian Council. I will copy and paste the parts that I am going to comment on below.

1.) The Concilium Plebis (English: Plebeian Council, Plebeian Assembly, People's Assembly or Council of the Plebs) was the principal assembly of the ancient Roman Republic. It functioned as a legislative/judicial assembly[1], through which the plebeians could pass laws, elect magistrates, and try judicial cases. The Plebeian Council was originally organized on the basis of the Curia, but in 471 BC adopted an organizational system based on residential districts or tribes.[2] The Plebeian Council usually met in the well of the comitium and could only be convoked by the Tribune of the Plebs. The assembly elected the Tribunes of the Plebs and the plebeian aediles, and only the plebeians were allowed to vote.

I loved that you added the transition from the curia to the new system here. It allows the reader to understand the progression of the Ancient Roman structure. Good source as well, very recent and credible. I checked all of the sources and there is a great mix of time periods.

2.) I really liked how you separated the history section into two categories based on chronology. This helps the reader understand the specifics in certain time periods and allows them to see the evolution.

The Plebeian Council was originally organized around the office of the Tribunes of the Plebs. In 494 BC, the plebeians held nightly meetings in some districts, with their earliest attempts at organization focusing on matters relating to their class.

This sentence in your 509 section could be cited to increase the credibility.

3.) Under your function section, I believe the word "Organisation" should be spelt "Organization"!

4.)Their ability to political prosecutions was later restricted by the twelve tables.[9]

This sentence is somewhat confusing. Maybe provide some detail on what a political prosecution is? Just a thought.

5.) In your last section which discusses the Legislation and three different forms, perhaps you could find a source that indicates the important of the three different forms. While it is nice to understand the differences, the importance of the differences are missing!

Overall, I think you added great detail to this article to increase the reader's ability to understand and visualize what the Plebeian Council was. The article is written in a neutral tone, with lots of citations and informative and relatable content.