User:Gusagyemang/Abdulcelil Levni/Millsnaps 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)
 * None

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.)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

 * Everything that’s written is very relevant to the artist, and the content is definitely well organized. You did a really great job including relevant information on your artist and did a great job staying on topic! Some areas in the article do now flow very well, which can be distracting. For example, take these sentences at the end of the article: “Additionally, He touched on his life as a painter in his poems. In the eighth folios of the poetry manuscript, Levnî, he talked of popularity as a painter and his intuition as a painter.” These two sentences could definitely be combined to introduce better flow. Also, I am confused as to whether or not “Levnî” is the actual title of the manuscript in this scenario? If so, it probably should be italicized. Also, italicize the book title: Levnî and the Surname: The Story of an Eighteenth-century Ottoman Festival,  In general, I find that the shortness of the sentences is a bit distracting/disrupts the overall flow of the article. I am sure that this is only because it is a draft, but eventually, I think that the overall quality of the piece would be enhanced if the sentences were more robust. A strong topic sentence is especially important.   I was also confused why there was both a “Lead” and an entire section that was titled with the artist’s name. I may be incorrect, but I think that there is not supposed to be a section titled with his name. Instead, I think that his name should appear in the first sentence of the Lead. Also, his place of birth appears twice in this article.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

 * The article is primarily very neutral, so great job executing that aspect.
 * Only a few claims stood out to me as possibly taking a non-neutral stance were:
 * His style was very innovative while still keeping true to traditional style. However, Levni's main concern seems to have been to paint single-leaved miniatures depicting individuals: beautiful girls, languidly reclining ladies, and charming young men.  He uses humor and popular language as well  These claims definitely have to be cited if they are going to be included in the article. Anything about what Levni’s art represents probably has to be closely cited and carefully paraphrased to avoid presenting anything controversial. Also, just to prevent redundancy, one of the “styles” should be deleted from that first sentence.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

 * It would be interesting to see if there are any debates regarding Levni’s art or dispute over what his work represents. If you could find one, it may be interesting to include. Also, what does his work represent historically? It may be worthwhile to add more depth to your article by speaking about his sources of inspiration, whether other artists or contextual events.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

 * The links work and the sources are relevant to the claims. I, unfortunately, cannot investigate this, though, because I do not have access to all of the sources through links (I think some of the texts are accessible through ILL?).
 * One thing that I want to mention is that one of the sources is in Spanish and offers the reader the chance to translate it to English via Google translate. I don't know if you can read Spanish or not but I don't know if I would be too quick to trust something that was automatically translated by Google (if you are reading the English text). One thing that I would also do would be to double-check if we are allowed to have our sources in APA format for the purposes of this article. I did mine in Chicago Style, but I am not positive about what format we are required to use.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
The article could be cited better. Meaning, after each sentence, there should probably be a subsequent citation to make sure that the reader knows that the facts presented are well-supported. The sources are primarily published works, which means that they are likely pretty reputable. However, it’s important to note that most are either from the 1990s or 2000s, so it may be worthwhile to include some more recent sources in addition to these. I am also slightly wary about the art bulletin citation. Also, I am pretty sure that the citation should come after the period in each sentence.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
I would definitely include a definition of what the “saz style” is, or, add a hyperlink to this. Also, hyperlink “Thessaloniki.” What is the “Silsilmane?” Hyperlink “atelier?” What is Gül Ìrepoglu? The Sultan Mustafa II? What about Padishas? Adding some images would also help the article! I think that you should include an image for each notable work that you discuss.

Overall Impressions


 * Overall, I think that this is a great article with solid, relevant information. I would work on improving the flow of the sentences and making sure that everything is well-cited.

Questions for New Articles Only


 * The article does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements in that it includes two articles that are not specifically about the artist.
 * I looked at Wellesley's Library super search to see if there was anything else that might be relevant to the topic in addition to what you have now, but I am struggling to find additional information myself. So, good job finding relevant sources! I would say that this list of sources does accurately represent what's available on the internet.
 * The article does link to other sources, so it is discoverable.