User:Gheizer/Ethiopian art/Millsnaps Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gheizer


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gheizer/Ethiopian_art?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ethiopian art

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.)

Content and Tone and Balance


 * These two sentences stand out to me as a bit too essay-like and should be cited: "With the introduction of Islamic texts, culture, and art to Africa, communities modified these traditions to accommodate local palates.The Ajamization of Qur’ānic texts by the Harari people, reflects this intersection of assimilation and preservation, through adapting traditional Islamic practices to indigenous culture and taste."
 * The following sentence also reads as something that could be a controversial claim and should be cited. However, it definitely brings up an important topic, but it's probably going to be disputed: "The imbalance in representation for Islamic manuscripts compared to other religious texts from Ethiopia in mainstream scholarship while noteworthy, is not a reflection of religious demographics, but rather of private ownership."
 * Missing citation: "This, in conjunction with the destruction of manuscripts during periods of regional conflict, lack of trust in government bodies, and smuggling; has made the duty of cataloging and preserving these sacred texts a difficult task for scholars."
 * This also seems as though it may be an art historical opinion or interpretation rather than a fact: "The Ajamization of Qur’ānic texts by the Harari people, reflects this intersection of assimilation and preservation, through adapting traditional Islamic practices to indigenous culture and taste."
 * Definitely cite more of the statements you make in order to sound more neutral! It seems as though some controversial claims are being presented towards the end of the article
 * If you can find an example of another manuscript, it would help to round out the article. You might still be in your research process, but are there any other relevant styles of manuscripts

Organization


 * I am not sure if the use of the semicolon here is grammatically correct: "Beyond visual likeness to Byzantine art, Ethiopia's geographic positioning in the Horn of Africa at the junction of the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean; is reflected in the aesthetic similarities between Harari script and other visual cultures."
 * Missing comma after "scholarship:" The imbalance in representation for Islamic manuscripts compared to other religious texts from Ethiopia in mainstream scholarship while noteworthy, is not a reflection of religious demographics, but rather of private ownership.
 * Change wasn't to was not: Basketry wasn’t the only artistry to emerge from the Muslim city of Harar.
 * On another note: I really like the sentence above, I figure that it's a transition from the article's earlier content and I think it's great that you incorporated that. But I think that you could extrapolate on this introduction sentence a little bit to allude to your discussion of manuscripts.
 * Eliminate one of the uses of "in part": "In part, because of its stylistic parallels to the 25 recorded collections produced in Harar, and in part, because it is one of the earliest documented texts—the oldest datable manuscript containing a text in Old Harari being produced in 1460"
 * Overall, I love the organization of the article. It opens with a more general overview of the topic and then slowly funnels into a discussion on more specific debates surrounding the topic, but, again, I would be careful when approaching this part at the end. Just make sure anything that is refutable is well-cited or that you include the name of the art historian or scholar making the argument. However, the article still has a very logical flow to it and is informative.

Sources and References


 * Double-check to ensure that we're allowed to cite our sources in APA instead of Chicago... I am not so sure about this myself.
 * Your references appear twice for some reason
 * The sources are both reputable and current
 * I actually don't see anything written about Christian illuminated manuscripts in your first source, though you mention Christian illuminated manuscripts as something that came from this source Might be a good idea to double check this!
 * "The oldest datable manuscript containing a text in old Harari" is copied from the fourth source (paraphrase instead!)

Images and Media


 * There are no images yet, but I think that they will help to round-out the article once included

Overall Impression


 * The article certainly is more complete now.
 * However, I would make sure you write with more of an awareness of the fact that the original article discusses Ethiopian manuscripts earlier. So, I guess my advice is to write with the intention of elaborating on what has already been written about manuscripts because, as of now, the draft currently sounds as though manuscripts have not been mentioned whatsoever in the article. My main suggestion though is to avoid writing down controversial claims and to make sure you cite your points!