User talk:Jdementor/Arch of Septimius Severus

Jasmine, My comments are below. Let's discuss them if you want.

Mark

Wikipedia Review Suggestions • A lead section that is easy to understand The lead is brief and to the point. Your subject is clear and well defined. You could change the format of the reference to the dates of the battles [194/195 and 197 -199] to be consistent. As a general comment related to the entire article, many of the sentences do not have a link to the reference. • A clear structure The structure is clear. The list of the coordinates as the first item in the Contents does not refer to any section in the article and is unnecessary as you have them in the panel on the right. • Balanced coverage The coverage is balanced. The main area where there is potential unbalance is in the discussion of the Dedicatory inscription [should be initial caps on “inscription”]. In this section you discuss the two brothers and the removal of one from the dedication in a neutral way. I followed the reference to see what was said about the dedication. Since it is in another language, I could not independently pick out the Latin inscription, but I applaud your finding this reference. It does add to the article. • Neutral content The content is neutral without a bias toward the father or either brother. • Reliable sources The sources I followed the link to provided useful information, the links to others were broken. Following are Rachael’s suggestions 1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I liked the comments in the Description about the speed of the building of the Arch that required several artists. The section needs to have a link to the reference for each of the facts. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Adding detail to the Iconography section would be interesting, particularly since you have so many views of the Arch from a distance. Are there photos of the panels that would add to your discussion of the iconography? The section for the Patron does not seem to be needed as the name of the Arch speaks to that question. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Reference 2 is important to the article, but I could not find the link. I followed reference 3 to the Congressional Magazine but could have used a reference to a specific part of that magazine. The other references need a link to the specific text you are using. For example, in reference 5 to a book, I was unable to open the book with the link provided. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I need more photos and will add them from the Wiki Commons. I really like the last of the External Links as the photo is so comprehensive and detailed and the other photos are good for your article. Does this site allow unrestricted use? I could not find a statement of whether the use is restricted or unrestricted. I wish I had such good photos for my article. Markwhite01 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)