User talk:Camsara99/Minerva

Response to Peer Review 2

Thank you Heinev1 for your review, it was an excellent help going forward. I took into consideration all of the suggestions made by both the reviewer and Dr.Gardner when finishing my article and found it a huge help in choosing the direction for my page. Camsara99 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor Comments on Draft/Peer Review 2

Heinev1 Thanks for this peer review and for the suggestions on improving content and clarity - a couple areas could have been expanded, but overall this is good! Grade: 13/15

Camsara99 I see you've already made several changes based on your peer's suggestions, but don't forget to leave a note in the sandbox with acknowledgements and a plan going forward. You've been busy with your page, and I like the direction you took with the pop culture, myth, and worship in England sections. Going forward, I think if you could add a bit more to the England section that would be great (and remove the England info in the Rome and Italy section). Likewise, there's a photo of a temple from Tunisia - you could add a section about Minerva in North Africa if you're feeling ambitious? And if you decide not to tackle the Menrva section, you should bring the 'Worship in Rome and Italy' section up to the standards of the rest of your contributions (ie make it as good as your stuff!!) - lots of the sentences in this section can be expanded upon, including providing more background info for the "the annual nail marking the year" that you just added. You know the drill - read it over, ask yourself if this makes sense to a novice, then provide more info so everything is really clear. I know a lot of what you'll be able to do over the next few weeks will depend on access to resources, which is why I said 'if' you decide to tackle Menrva - do you have the books out from the library that we talked about? If so, I think the best way to strategize your improvements on this section is to clarify exactly how these two goddesses are related (according to the most recent scholarship): are they the exact same goddess? Is Minerva a combo of Athena and Menrva? What exactly is the same and different about Minerva and Menrva and why? If you don't have the books out from the library it might be hard to do this, so that will be up to you to decide. Don't worry too much about any one section, for the next few weeks just work on making the entire article cohesive, organized, and up to your standards! Keep up the great work! Grade: 14/15 Gardneca (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer review 2

Hi Camsara99, This looks great! Overall, you explain things really well. Your sentences are easy to understand, grammar looks good. You have a few spelling mistakes that need to be addressed, like "shield" in the Minerva and Medusa section.

I think it would be great to add some images to the sections about Minerva's presence in mythology that correlate with the different stories that you include.

When looking through your sources, I see a few primary sources which is great. I think it would be interesting to state which information you get from the primary sources in the article itself. Such as where you write that "According to Livy". While not necessary, it is interesting to the reader to learn which primary source this information is coming from, and many people do not think to check the footnotes.

Lastly, I think the lead could be shortened a bit. You have a lot of information in the lead that could be used to create a new section. The lead should be a brief introduction to the article and to who Minerva was, and then maybe you can put all this great info into a section "History of Minerva" or something like that.

Overall, great work! You've added so much information, I can't wait to see the final product Heinev1 (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Draft/Peer Review 1

100145119d, thanks for your methodical and organized review. You point out many of the good qualities of this draft and indicate some areas for improvement (additional citations for the myth section), but there is not much else for your peer to incorporate from your review. For your next review, focus more on constructive criticism rather than a systematic outline of the positive aspects of your peer's article. I know this can be hard for a well-executed draft, but there are always improvements that can be made, so I'd like to see a bit more engagement with the topic you're reviewing. Also, you mention a citation that links to a website - which? Is the website reliable? These sorts of details will be helpful to your peer. Overall, good work, but allow yourself to be more critical and discerning during the next round of edits! Grade: 16/20

Camsara99 good work on this draft. Although your reviewer did not give you many suggestions for improvement, this can be taken as a positive since there are only a few problematic areas on this draft - so, well done! However, you should keep the suggestions they do make (expanding on sources especially) to mind. We've already spoken about the improvements I want you to make: specifically, adding primary sources to the Roman versions of earlier Greek myth (Hyginus at the very least) as well as looking into the Etruscan Menrva and improving that section. There are some capitalization/spelling issues in your lead, so make sure to proofread carefully. Overall, good work! Grade: 18/20. Gardneca (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer review General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Camsara99 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Camsara99/Minerva Lead Lead evaluation

The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content. The original article does not have details on the Capitoline triad in the Lead nor does it mention Minerva not being a patron of violence. The Lead also did not mention how she was depicted. The introductory sentence has not changed as it was good in the original article. There are descriptions about the article's major sections in the Lead. The topics mentioned in the Lead are all mentioned in the article, nothing is missing. The lead is concise. Even though it is long-the article itself is long.

Content Content evaluation

The content added to the article is relevant to the topic. The user added a new section about Minerva's presence in mythology. The content added is up-to-date with the citations and the information. The user included three sections about Minerva in mythology with three other mythical characters. There is not any content missing, all of the added information belongs to the article.

Tone and Balance Tone and balance evaluation

All the content added is neutral. There are not any claims that appear to be biased towards a position. Everything added by the user is neutral and is written only to inform the reader about the topic, not about a particular viewpoint of the topic. The viewpoints are normal, none are over-represented nor underrepresented. The content added does not persuade the reader in any one position.

Sources and References Sources and references evaluation

All of the new content is backed up by reliable sources. The only issue is that all the information about Minerva and mythology is from one source. There is a lot of new content added about Minerva and mythology therefore it might be better to have more than one source for the information provided. The sources do reflect the available literature on the topic. The oldest source is from 1994. Therefore the sources are current. All of the new sources added work besides the first one. When I click the link it does not go to an article, it goes to a website.

Organization Organization evaluation

The information added is well-written and clear. It is easy to read and does not go off topic. There is only one spelling error in the new information added and a couple grammatical errors. The spelling mistake is the word "environment" in the "Minerva and Arachne" section. The new content added is well-organized and broken down into three sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation

The new content has made the article more complete. The section on Minerva and mythology has made a good improvement. The strengths about the new content is that is gives the reader a good perspective in how Minerva was written about and gives brief summaries of her stories in mythology. The content could be improved with photos of Minerva from mythology. There were no photos added to the existing document. 100145119d (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

Camsara99, I know you had a really hard time finding sources, but you've done a good job of tracking a few down that will definitely improve this article. Just to note, Bulfinch (the Age of Fable) is a reprint of an 1855 book - not that you can't use it (on the contrary, it will probably be really helpful), but just be aware that it's not the most recent resource. One thing that is noticeably missing on the current Minerva page are any references to primary sources. There is a link to a web page that contains a comprehensive list of references to Minerva in antiquity, and you should definitely incorporate as much of this as possible (https://web.archive.org/web/20120630114429/http://www.mythindex.com/roman-mythology/M/Minerva.html) - like Encyclopedia Mythica, you can't actually cite this page, but you can track down the primary source citations within it and cite those. Keep up the good work and, for what it's worth, I'm glad you stuck it through with Minerva! Gardneca (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources to look at as well:

• Fara, P. (2010). Minerva/Athene. Endeavour, 34(1), 4-5.
• Bodel, J. (2008). Cicero’s Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: an outline of Roman domestic religion. Household and family religion in antiquity, 248-75.
• Morawiecki, L. (1977). The symbolism of Minerva on the coins of Domitianus. Klio, 59(1-2), 185-194.

Have you looked at more general books?

• North, J. A., & Marincola, J. (2000). Roman religion (Vol. 30). Cambridge University Press.
• Staples, A. (1998). From good goddess to vestal virgins: sex and category in Roman religion. Psychology Press.