Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

Name: Emely Lopez Grade: 9/10 – Good job, Emely!!

Criteria Needs more work Strong
Opening: the paper is introduced appropriately for the assignment
so that the reader is clear about the writer’s intention.

Appropriate context is provided.

The writer has encouraged a reader’s interest.

The thesis is clear and appropriate for the assignment.

Readability—organization, clarity, cohesion, and flow: the

ideas are organized and structured in a manner appropriate for
the assignment

The student shows skill and knowledge of transitions and bridge

building to help the reader follow the flow of ideas.

Paragraphs are unified around one idea and one point.

Sentences are constructed and arranged effectively to show

variety, clarity, and concision.

Word choice is precise, clear, effective, appropriate, and

interesting.
Development: the ideas and points are clearly and appropriately
developed with sufficient details so as to show depth of thought
and ability to link generalizations and main points with specific
support.

Development goes beyond restating others’ words and work and

includes the writer’s own analysis and explanation/reasoning.

Outside sources are accurately and honestly introduced,

quoted, paraphrased, summarized, integrated, and
documented.
Closing: the piece of writing is concluded in a way that is
appropriate for the purpose and audience (closing statement)

The conclusion provides coherence with the intention noted in

the introduction and the support provided in the development of
the piece of writing.

Writing conventions—compassion and consideration for the

reader: shows care in revising, editing, and proofreading so as to
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

eliminate most problems with standard English usage, syntax,

punctuation, spelling, and grammar. Although the reader might
encounter an occasional error, there should be no pattern of errors;
shows precise and consistent adherence to documentation
conventions when outside sources are used.

Architectural History and Academic Writing

If an architectural historian did not write about their findings and studies, their work

would not be known to other scholars and people interested in the field. In this field, the most Commented [MOU1]: Good opening

common type of publications are articles, which are short and must therefore be concise and

clear with their information. Writers in this discipline, therefore, use organization, the niche Commented [MOU2]: Awkward phrasing

vocabulary of the field, and “setting the scene” by thoroughly describing the context that the

building or site they’re analyzing requires (such as the historical context, the location, etc). All

of these methods are somewhat intertwined because they a’re essential to the making of the

article.; Bby using these methods, the writer allows for the reader to have a clear picture of what

the paper argues and what the writer intends for the reader to take away by reading it. One niche

subdiscipline within the history of architecture field is the history of Roman architecture, and this

paper will be specifically focused on the way that scholars write about the Pantheon, and how

those methods (all described above) allow for the writer to get their ideas out into the world and

join a discussion with others who are interested in the subject. Commented [MOU3]: This is a very strong introduction!

Organization, as a broad term, is the basic way in which the writer chooses to incorporate Commented [MOU4]: What do you mean? “as a whole,”
“in general”?
the information into their paper. Because the organization of the article/book determines the way

that the reader will perceive the work, figuring out how the paper will be organized is essential
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

for the writer so as to not confuse their intended audience with a hard-to-follow paper. If it is

badly organized, it is easy for the ideas to get jumbled up and confusing, for both the reader and

the writer. If the ideas are confusing, then the conversation regarding the work turns from a

scholarly discussion about the claim to a criticism of the work, or worse, there will be no

conversation at all because people don’t read it. An article assigned to us as a class reading Commented [MOU5]: Avoid using contractions in college
writing.
when we were doing our Roman architecture unit, called “The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Progeny” by William Macdonald focuses on the methods that the Romans used to build the Commented [MOU6]: Titles of articles are not italicized.
But you were correct when you put the title in quotation
marks.
Pantheon as well as the reasons why (Why did they use those methods? Why did they build it in

the first place?). It is organized so that after he mentions the methods used by the Romans to

build their Pantheon, he immediately answers the why. Macdonald writes that “The Roman

passion for sequence and organization, for carefully thinking out interrelationships between one

thing and another, necessary of course to the success of all major construction, but followed

through by the Romans with great thoroughness” (pg. 43). With this example, we see that the

claim of this article is clear and concise, and he implements various diagrams and images

throughout the article at just the right moment to complement whatever it is that the article is

talking about at that moment, particularly Roman order. The professor of UCSB’s History of

Architecture 6F said he chose this article for how well it was organized and how it was written at

an undergraduate level, so that the audience had an easier time following it and understanding

the message. The way that an article is organized is like the skeleton of the paper:, it is the most Commented [MOU7]: In-text citation (see Starting Lines)
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

solid part of the paper and provides structure for both the reader and the writer, which makes it

essential for both.

The specific vocabulary used in this field is a mix of various different disciplines which Commented [MOU8]: How can you connect these
paragraphs?
come together: Architecture, History, and Archaeology. Architectural historians, by the very

nature of the discipline, must borrow many terms from other disciplines and use them in their

own work. The meaning of many of the words, however, is changed to have a different

connotation (for example, if it was a word taken from architecture, it’s meaning becomes less

mathematical and more conceptual, more of a theme rather than a characteristic). Words such as

“trabeated” (post and lintel construction, which means two vertical posts that support one

horizontal piece) or arcuated (which means arched), all connect to a bigger theme; specific

architectural history terms words such as “longitudinal” which goes from being a characteristic

(“the building is long”) to being part of the theme of hierarchy within a building (“the building is

long because one specific side of it is more sacred than the other”), and words such as

“centralized” which goes from being a geometrical characteristic to again being part of the theme

of hierarchy (one of the most famous building with this theme being the Pantheon itself). By

using these terms, the members of the community can discuss ideas with each other having the

exact word they need to get their point across or articulate what they mean. When they talk

about the Pantheon, they use words which describe not only the material used and the way it was

built (arches), but also conceptual terms such as centralization and hierarchy. In “On the

Structure of the Roman Pantheon” for example, at the very introduction of the article, the authors
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

wrote “Other factors cited for the technical success of the Pantheon include the use of a series of

massive, concentric stepped rings and the lightening of the dome by coffering and gradated,

light-weight aggregates” (pg. 1). This describes the way that the Pantheon, specifically the dome

(the most recognizable part of the building) was structured by using specific vocabulary, such as

“coffering” and “gradated,” that pertains specifically to their discipline.

When “setting the scene” for an architectural article, the context is essential for the reader Commented [MOU9]: Why did you put the discussion of
the context later in the paper? I feel like it’s a point that is
broader (more overarching) than vocabulary.
to understand points that the writer is trying to make. Included within the idea of “context” is the

historical context (when was the building was built, who was it that commissioned the building,

why was it commissioned, what was it used for, how has it been used over time, etc.), and what

the surrounding landscape is and was. Writers cannot rely solely on images to get their point

across because there are no images of what the buildings looked like when they were originally

built, so they must be very descriptive when talking about the building through the historical

lens. It’s also important because one must know the scene to understand broader concepts and

themes in the architecture, such as regional influence, religion, etc. Actual photographs and

diagrams are very often used in these types of articles because many of the concepts require the

reader to visually see what it is that the author is trying to get you to understand. As previously

mentioned, the historical context is imperative for the reader to understand the building that is

being written about. While the articles may talk about the history of the building in specific, it is

imperative that the historical context is also mentioned: the history of the surrounding area, the

history of the society that built it, etc. In an article written by Indra Kagis McEwen titled
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

“Hadrian’s Rhetoric I: The Pantheon” the historical context of the Pantheon is more the focus

rather than the building itself: it’s more about the ruler Hadrian and his role in the building of the

Pantheon and how it is that it influenced the way that the Pantheon was built rather than about

the structure of the Pantheon. As McEwen provides historical context of the Pantheon, he writes

“Hadrian built on the site of an earlier Pantheon, which had been a rectangular building with its

entrance on the long side. Agrippa had completed his structure as part of the Imperial building

program, and had meant it to honor Augustus” (pg. 2). In this example, we are given the

historical context of the site which as a whole is essential to understanding the overall argument

that the author is making. This article focuses more on the WHY rather than the HOW, which is

a common angle that architectural historians take, and allows for discussion. Commented [MOU10]: This paragraph is quite long. Is it
possible to break it up?

When a reader is reading about a building, the author is doing everything in their power Formatted: Highlight

to make the reading feel more real to them. They must use photographs and diagrams in addition

to the thorough descriptions of the setting. In Mark, Robert, and Paul Hutcherson’s article “On

the Structure of the Roman Pantheon,” the reader is given a thorough description of the Pantheon

and its inner structural workings. When they are describing, for example, the “success” of the Commented [MOU11]: Try to avoid using present
continuous in a research paper. Use present/past simple or
present/past perfect.
Pantheon dome, Mark and Hutchinson write “The dome itself is assumed to have been erected on

timber centering so that, in effect, dome forces were ‘turned on’ all at once with the removal of

the centering” (pg. 3-4). This is a brief description, but throughout the article, they use various

diagrams, images, and specific numerical data that covers all of the bases of description. This

article cites MacDonald’s article often as well, because it thoroughly describes and explains the
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

images and diagrams that are implemented. The description is useful because it allows for the

readers to ask questions and therefore participate in a discussion about the topic.

If an architectural historian didn’t write their work down and get it published, the

discipline of architectural history would be virtually extinct. It is almost the lifeline of this

discipline, because unlike other disciplines, observation is not enough to understand all of the

themes and ideas, and other scholars would not be able to discuss these things with each other

because there would not be enough material for a discussion to take place. Writing in this

discipline allows for the author’s claim to reach far and wide, which sparks discussion amongst

scholars. Richard Wittman, the professor at UCSB who teaches Art History 6F, put it this way:

“It is the main way in which your work gets known to other people.” He also admits that in his

experience in writing for this discipline, he finds that writing about the concepts is a great

thinking tool for those who are within the field. By writing about architectural history, you allow

yourself to process the information better and fully understand it, and you’re joining a

conversation with other scholars who are interested in the subject.

Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

Works Cited
Mark, Robert, and Paul Hutchinson. “On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon.” The Art
Bulletin, vol. 68, no. 1, 1986, pp. 24–34. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3050861.
Macdonald, William L., The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny, 1976.

McEwen, Indra Kagis. “Hadrian's Rhetoric I: The Pantheon.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics,

no. 24, 1993, pp. 55–66. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20166879.

Wittman, Richard. Personal Interview. 8 Feb. 2019

Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

February 20, 2019

Dear Masha,

This paper was much more enjoyable for me to write because I genuinely liked the subject I was
writing about all throughout the project. Usually projects like this are much more difficult for
me to write because I get bored of the topic I choose very easily, but with this project it was
easier for me to see it through.
The most important stages of writing this for me were definitely the planning stage (including
the interview), and the revision stage after writing my working draft. The planning stage was the
way that I figured how I wanted to structure my paper and what it was that I wanted to focus the
paper on. I enjoyed conducting the interview because it gave me an excuse to go to office hours,
which I normally never do, and talk to the professor who had a lot of insightful things to say
about the discipline that I chose to write about. Writing the working draft was perfect for me to
see what I wanted to include and what I could omit, and also for me to figure out the way I was
going to order the paper. The revision of the working draft left me feeling super confused and
that’s how I knew that the way I had gone about writing the paper wasn’t going to be clear, and
so when I began to write my final draft, I had an idea of how NOT to write the paper already in
my mind.
Three of the many writing choices that I made for this paper were the topic I chose, the length of
the paper, and the word choices. As I mentioned before, I have a hard time sticking to one topic
for a prolonged period of time without getting bored or restless, so I chose this topic very
carefully. I made sure that it was something I was knowledgeable about (at least somewhat) and
that I could actually focus on it without, again, getting restless. I surprised myself with the actual
length of the final draft because my working draft was significantly shorter than this and I had
decided to omit many things from it. I suppose once I figured out exactly what it was I wanted
to say and how I was going to say it, everything fit together much more neatly and I had a lot
more to say than I thought I did when I was just writing it unorganized. The word choices I
made were all geared towards one goal: I wanted the reader to know that I knew what I was
talking about, and I wanted to avoid the paper becoming tedious to read.
Emely Lopez, 7209943

2/18/19

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2 8AM

One thing that did shape my view on how to tackle the writing project, that wasn’t in class, was
my professor’s commentary on how writing is used as a thinking tool. With that idea in mind, I
was able to write in a way that helped me process the information, not just regurgitate it. In
class, the Starting Lines example really helped me because it gave me something of a model.
While the essay wasn’t exactly A plus material, it did give me a good starting point because prior
to seeing the example I wasn’t even sure of where I should start. One of the articles that I used
for my paper, Macdonald’s article on the Pantheon, gave me some inspiration as well because
the way it was written made it easy for me to spot everything that I wanted to touch on in this
paper.
I want to know if the paper was tedious, or repetitive, because of the word choice. I also know
that it’s very long, and I feel like I did an okay job at organizing everything I wanted to say on
the subject, but if it is confusing or unclear in any way I would really like to know. I wasn’t sure Commented [MOU12]: Emely, your organization works
if I had gone maybe too specific, so maybe I should have un-narrowed my topics? Also, I’m really well! The only thing that I noticed is that some of your
paragraphs are a bit too long.
never sure if I’m correctly using in-text citations, so if I’m not I’d really like to know that.
That’s really all I want to know. Commented [MOU13]: I think that you managed to keep a
good balance between making overarching points and
providing specific evidence.
Commented [MOU14]: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/resear
Sincerely, ch_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guid
e/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html

Emely Lopez