User:Jcwagner6/Seljuk stucco figures/Shakedownstreet120 Peer Review

Jcwagner,

In your opening paragraph when you are describing the stucco figures I feel like you never directly describe the look of the figures as much as you do the origin so that's definitely something I would expect more of in an introduction, especially on something like Wikipedia. However, you did a excellent job describing their purpose and why they are prominent historical artifacts. You use the word "notable" and phrases such as "essential to note" frequently throughout your writing which is adding an unsavory element of redundancy to your project. Other than maybe over using certain words and phrases your grammar, punctuation, and spelling are impeccable. But i have to be honest i am a little confused at how you decided to group your information, because its kind of put in there in a way that chops up the information and separates facts that I would assume should be presented together as the relate in topic. This separation makes your article seem less cohesive then It would be if you simply rearranged the way you present alike facts.

For example try grouping together descriptions, facts on history, and purpose into the same couple paragraph instead of having them spread about the paper, it just makes it easier for someone who knows nothing about your project to decipher the different elements involved in it's history. An example in your article would just be in our opening paragraph you give a mini description of the artifacts. Then in your history section you describe them in much greater details. You would just have to move that part into the introduction and i feel it would give the reader a better understanding of what these figures entail.

Over all I do thing you have presented a rather informative, well-composed article. A few tweaks here and there and I'd say your article is incredibly accomplished.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)