User:Gusagyemang/Abdulcelil Levni/Mellowyellow4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gusagyemang


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gusagyemang/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Abdulcelil Levni

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 original article was very scant, so it's great that you were able to find so much information to add.

The lead is great - you immediately give dates and who he was working under, as well what type and style of art he was known for. For this sentence: "He is a well-regarded Ottoman miniaturist s  known for his traditional and innovative style" (just remove the "s"), I would phrase it either: "He was a well-regarded Ottoman miniaturist known for his traditional and innovative style" or "He is well-regarded as a Ottoman miniaturist known for his traditional and innovative style". Because this is a historical figure, either use "was" or "is" if you're describing how he is regarded now. Finally, I would move the last sentence under the "Biography section" - where and when he died is important biographical information, but I don't think it needs to be included in the lead, because that is supposed to be more general overview information.

For the "Biography" section, I think a lot of the information could be moved to subsequence sections, so that you're no repeating information and because I think talking about his notable works and style is less relevant to biographical information. If you find any other information about his birth family, life, travels, relationships, or death; this would be the section to put them in.

For this sentence: "He eventually became a master artist in the saz style during his stay at the palace atelier," first, I am wondering if "Palace Atelier" should be capitalized, because it seems to be a specific place. Second, if you're able to find any information about what the "saz style" was, I think it would be good to included it, because I don't think the average reading is going to know what that is, and that would be helpful to get a better understanding of Levnî's artistic style. For this sentence: "In chapter two, His identity, Gül Ìrepoglu has gathered evidenced pointing to the fact that he did not have much money and struggled with an illness in his early twenties," I can see by the citation that you're referencing a book written by Gül Ìrepoglu. Because you specifically mention a chapter in this book, I think it would be helpful to give a little more context that you are using a resource here, and maybe why this specific author is important. Also, is "His identity" the title of the chapter? If so, I would try to make that clearer. You could also circumvent this by just saying "There is evidence..." and then providing the citation; because this isn't a research paper, I don't think you have to worry as much about providing specific information about the author or book in the text itself. Finally, a couple grammatical fixes: "Nevertheless, Levnî was still well-regarded in and out of court  and outside  as  i an independent artist of his time."

For "Notable Works," I think it's great to have these subsections that are separated by each work, it's a very clear way of organizing the information and is helpful for the reader if they are looking for something specific. For this sentence: "Typical padishas use text to do this," I would add a link to the wikipedia page - Padishah - because it's a specialized term. It also looks like there are some images of his work on the original page; if you're able to identify any of those and potentially match them up with specific works you are writing about here, I think that could be very helpful for the reader.

Overall, you have added so much important information that was lacking from this page. I think the organization structure is great with moving just a couple of things around, and proving the above clarifications would be very helpful.