User:Jpegthebitmap/Maragheh observatory/Albkvz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jpegthebitmap


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpegthebitmap/Maragheh_observatory?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Maragheh observatory

Evaluate the drafted changes
Great job reworking sentences from the original article. I think that the edits you're making help make the sentences a lot clearer. Many times when I was reading the original text sentence I became extremely confused or had trouble following because the sentence was so long, but your reworks made it so much clearer. I think the changes will be great.

However, it is a little hard in your draft in actual writing to tell what you have changed without scrolling back up and down to your notes. Please bare with me if there are any irrelevant critiques.

First question to decide on, if you haven't already. The chunks that are missing citations, do you intend to scope out the sources missing or remove those sentences from the original?

Under Hulagu Khan, you provided a brief explanation of what a waqf is, even though there is a separate page for it. You did not do this for a wazir. It is a little inconsistent, and I'd recommend doing it for both or neither.

Also, if you are able, I'd recommend a bit more sentence structure variety. A lot of the sentences under history have the same "leading sentence chunk, following sentence chunk" format, and it can make it a little blocky to read.

The history section could also possibly use some sub-headings. I'm not sure if it'd be possible to break it up a little more like that, but it could be helpful to readers if it was broken up a little more somehow.

I think the most important thing to focus on is to keep refining the readability of the overall article. The changes you plan on making currently are great, but there are definitely still areas that could be improved. Keep up the good work, though.

Response to peer review
Hello, and thank you for your peer review!

I believe that alot of the missing citations are found in existing sources, and I'll look for them there, and otherwise they'll be removed.

I can definitely add the bit on wazir!

On sentence structure, while I agree with you that it can be less than interesting, alot of the paraphrasing violates Wikipedia's rules about close paraphrases, so I'm trying to avoid close paraphrasing while keeping accurate information. The subheadings is a very good idea, though! ~