User:Bennett Sutter/John of Seville/Goomba2003 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bennet Sutter


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bennett Sutter/John of Seville
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * John of Seville

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The draft adding to the article, John of Seville, was overall well written and added important edits. The draft also added a section which I believe to be a good addition to the article as a whole. When looking at the Lead of the article, the draft does not expand this section. I think that this is acceptable because the draft mainly focuses on expanding already existing sections. The added section, titled, "Copying Errors" could be added somewhere in the Lead section. My only suggestion for the Lead section would be to include something about newly added section.

The content added to the Wikipedia article is relevant to the rest of it. The section "Copying Errors" is a good addition to the article because it focuses on the work that John of Seville did. Most of the references are up to date, but it is difficult for me to say if sources that are decades old are out-of-date because John of Seville lived so long ago. After reviewing all of the sources used in my peer's draft, I have found that all the sources are legitimate and high standard (but I'm not an expert).

The organization of the draft is good overall. I was able to understand the content that was entirely added by my peer. I sometimes struggled with other sections, but I cannot blame my peer for sections in which only a few lines or small edits were made. I have one small critique about the "Copying Errors" section. I believe that some sentences could be rewritten in a more effective way, or in a way to make in more grammatically appealing.

After reading through the entirety of the article, my first thought was that more images need to be added to the draft to add more "flavor". However, googling the topic led to me finding very few images of John of Seville or related topics which might fit the article well.

Response
I'm not entirely sure about adding the "Copying Errors" section to the Lead section. The Lead section is typically brief and doesn't go into such details. However, I could make brief mention of details surrounding the copying errors and John's identity in the lead section. The newest source used is from 2007. I should put more consideration into the time at which such sources were published. I likely won't make too many changes to what I have already added to the "Copying Errors" section, but I do think minor rewording of the content would be helpful in improving the clarity of the article ("A number of fortunate factors have aided in determining whether certain translations belong to John of Seville" does sound a little off). I also feel that images would greatly improve the article by providing visual context. I've yet to find a source that provides images related to the subject, but I'm sure I can find something that is relevant to the article.