Response to 2nd peer review I will rephrase some of the lead, and add a link to the article about the Capitoline Hill as suggested. I will also try to make the opening sentence of "The gates of Janus" section clearer. I am also hoping to add more archaeological information to the final draft, and I believe I have found some good sources to help with that.

Found more sources: Wright, Horace W. "The Janus Shrine of the Forum." American Journal of Archaeology 29, no. 1 (1925): 79-81. Accessed March 16, 2020. doi:10.2307/497726. This will be used to add to the "The gates in use" section.

Müller, Valentine. "The Shrine of Janus Geminus in Rome." American Journal of Archaeology 47, no. 4 (1943): 437-40. Accessed March 16, 2020. doi:10.2307/499831. This will be used to add to the "Origins" section.

Rmac5 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Feedback on Peer Review/Draft 2[edit]

Classicaldisappointmentuno: thanks for your peer review and suggestions for improvement. You grammatical suggestions are generally good, but slightly confusing, and I would have like to see a bit more detail. Still, I think your peer will find it helpful and your advice is appreciated! Grade: 11/15.

Rmac5 I know you were having trouble finding more sources/info to add to your article, but I see from your note above that there are a couple additional reference you'll be looking at. I think you'll be able to add more info to the 'modern ruins' section from these sources, since they're published in an archaeological journal (here's hoping!). You did a lot of proofreading in this last round of edits, and your peer reviewer gave you some additional suggestions for improving the clarity and presentation of your content. Don't forget to respond to your peer reviewer here in your sandbox talk page (10 points). Make all proofreading, grammatical, spelling, and structural changes. 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. Now that we've met and discussed sources, I hope you feel that you're in a better position to add more content - I'm really looking forward to seeing how this turns out! Grade: 12/15. Gardneca (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Feedback on Peer Review/Draft 1[edit]

SPhilSmit thanks for your review and the suggestions for your peer, and for copying it from your other page and pasting it here. You point out important areas for improvement, with regard to the lead, citations, and sections to add (origins is definitely an area to address)! I think under sources and references you meant to write that the links did work, since all the ones I clicked were okay - please let your peer know if that's not the case (specifically which ones don't work). I love the suggestion of reading the draft out loud, but your peer might have benefited from some copyediting on your part - where specifically are there grammatical errors, sentence frags, etc.? For next time try to increase that level of detail. Overall, good work! 17/20 Gardneca (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rmac5 good work so far on a topic that has very little info. Go ahead and incorporate all the suggestions your peer reviewer made, especially with regard to the lead, citations, and consider adding an 'origin' section as they mentioned. I agree with the 'not normal' wording as well, so be sure to address that. In terms of style/grammar, you might also consider going to the writing centre to have a second pair of eyes on your work and to get some direction in presenting your info as clearly as possible. After you address these suggestions, keep on adding content and keep up the great work! Grade: 18/20 Gardneca (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Hello Rmac5! Overall your article was very good. It is a very interesting topic! My biggest recommendation is to work on your organization and add an origin section.

General info I am reviewing Rmac5 wikipedia article on the Temple of Janus. User:Rmac5/draft sandbox

Lead

The lead is concise and to the point. You did a wonderful job at adding more information to ensure that the information they added was discussed in the lead. While the lead was concise it needs a bit more information. For example, you stated "The Temple of Janus, although it was not a normal temple, stood in the Roman Forum near the Basilica Aemilia, along the Argiletum" I would suggest that you add a short description of why the temple was not 'normal'. In addition, I would try to use less leading or opinionative language. Maybe say, "The Temple of Janus was different from other temple because...". I would also add an outline of what you were going to discuss in the article. By outlining the sections you will help with the flow of the article.

Content

The content in this article is generally up to date. Most of the sources are from the 1990s and 2000s. I would recommend adding some more sources to strengthen your article. In addition, a missing section of information is the origin of the temple. Who built it and why?

Tone and Balance

The information is generally nutereal. You did a wonderful job of stating the fact without our own opinion. The only time saw a bit of leading language was in the lead when you called the temple not normal. Please see the lead evaluation to see how I recommend changing it.

Sources and References

The links did not works. The sources were relevant to the topic. There was some elements, such as a sources that discusses origins of the temple and more sources about the modern ruins. Also a discussion of how they became ruins.

Organization

The article was well written. There were no spelling mistakes. There were some grammatical error, such as sentence fragments and miss placed commons. I would recommend that you read your articles out loud and maybe have a friend read it for you. Your article needs a bit more organization and use subheading to break up the information. This will hope your article flow and make it easier for your reader to follow.

Images and Media

You did not add any media or Images.