User:Inexperienced Egg/Fatimid art/WhimsicalOkapi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Inexperienced Egg


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Inexperienced%20Egg/Fatimid_art?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fatimid art

Evaluate the drafted changes
You have done a fantastic job restructuring and editing this article, congratulations!

Overall:

I completely agree that the structure and tone of the original article was heavily skewed and you have done a fantastic job rebalancing this article. I will say that I do miss the pictures of the original article, so if you could find a way to reincorporate some more pictures I think that that could be useful.

Lead:

I really enjoyed your lead, I think it was concise and gave good initial background on Fatimid art. I do wish that you incorporated more of the article content in the lead, so the reader knows exactly what this article is going to specifically discuss. If you added a line or two that outlined the significance and content of each section, that would be an improvement. I really appreciated all of the in-text links to different terms that you provided. Your grammar, spelling, and verbiage are all fantastic, clear, and concise, which is much appreciated.

Content:

I loved the fact that you added in new sections for manuscripts, books, and building inscriptions. You are looking at art much more holistically than the original article and I think it really aids the article. While the original article talked a lot about ewers, I noticed that you completely erased all mentions of ewers. Maybe adding in a sentence or two back in would be helpful because it clearly is a significant aspect of Fatimid art (according to the original article creator at least).

I appreciated the word links in the lead, but in the main paragraphs I think you can cut a few out. I do not think you need links to words such as wood, ceramics, gold jewelry, etc., maybe you could save the vocabulary links for words that are not commonly known and that are specific and unique to the article and topic at hand.

I would love more visual detail within the main paragraphs. Picking an average piece as an example and recounting a visual analysis might help. For example, you say, “Fatimid architecture, along with other artifacts of this era, cannot be easily categorized as products of a certain style or time period. In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of Fatimid arts, they ought to be put in a much larger context of the medieval Mediterranean world than just North Africa and Egypt.” Maybe you could add pictures/descriptions about a few architecturally opposing structures, so the reader can form their own conclusions on how vastly different the architecture was at the time. Any details about height, materials, paints would also be interesting!

Your section on manuscripts is fantastic, I would not change a thing! I do think that the book section is lacking in detail though. I would not make the book section a separate entity and instead incorporate it into the manuscript section if you have no plans to add to that section (maybe just call the section “literature”?).

I would love some examples of building inscriptions, I feel like this section is quite vague and could be filled out more.

Structure:

I liked the structure minus the notes mentioned above, I can tell you have done a lot of work mapping this article out. The rest of my feedback on structure is incorporated above.

Tone and balance:

I think that you do not draw from any source too heavily or skew towards any particular viewpoint. You have done a great job keeping a neutral point of view. In comparison to the other sections, the manuscript section is much more detailed (which I loved!) then the other sections, in that sense the article felt slightly unbalanced.

References + Media + Misc.:

Your references are all great, wikipedia approved, secondary sources. Your grammar and spelling are both great as well and I think that you structured the article very well. I think that one of the strongest points of the original article that I would encourage you to reincorporate would be the image gallery. I think pictures are always useful and it could be an opportunity to elaborate on specific structures/pieces like I mentioned above.