User:Jpegthebitmap/Maragheh observatory/Mcolletti 2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Krsstkof2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krtsstko2/Maragheh_observatory?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Maragheh observatory

History Section
- I would change the wording in the second sentence "This is according to multiple books including ...". This feels awkward to have the citation for a source outside of the sentence itself. This part could be expanded upon to say what each of the three sources say, or slightly reworded.

- Would also change the sentence "Al-Tusi developed many astronomical theories..." to make it sound less critical of al-Tusi. "Failed to carry them to completion" is correct, but the connotation sounds negative.

- Change/fix capitalization of al-Tusi throughout. In some sentences "Al" is capitalized at the start of the sentence and on some it is lowercase.

- Change wording on "Al-Tusi supposedly preyed..." to remove supposedly

- Change sentence that states "According to texts recovered from the observatory..." the inclusion of the Chinese astronomer later makes this sentence redundant unless it its reworded. Or move this sentence further down as an introduction to Fao Munji

Overall a really well written section. I'm not exactly sure everything that was edited from you, versus included in the original but I wanted to give feedback on the entire thing as a whole. I really like the inclusion of Hulagu Khan in the history section, it makes a lot more sense than in it's own section. The only thing I would maybe change is to read it out loud and add any additional transition sentences as need be that would make it flow smoother.

Description
I really like this section as well and feel like it flows together. It's very technical compared to other sections in the article, but the syntax works because it's a technical description of the building. My only suggestion would be to add a description about what the ruins look like today if you can find one.

Response to Peer Review
Thank you for the feedback!

Many of the points in the review cover grammar or awkward sentences. Much of this results from trying to rewrite sentences that seem to have been originally written by non-native english speakers, and I haven't yet turned to perfecting the paragraphs yet, as I might make more additions in the future; your critiques, however, are valid. I will contest the mentioning of a Chinese astronomer not being redundant compared to mentioning the prestige of the observatory making it known in China; one sentence deals with the fame of the site, the other deals with prominent individuals who worked there. I will also be going in for a second round of editing, as mentioned prior, so I'll make that difference more clear. I also hesitate to remove the "supposedly", as trying to prove definitively whether or not Hulagu Khan was manipulated seems impractical. Perhaps I'll look for another word that sounds more professional. I'm also uncertain still on whether or not to leave the "according to multiple books, including [several Persian texts]" in or not, as while it seems wrong to me to leave what should be just a regular citation sitting out, I don't know if there is some culturally or intellectually relevant aspect. I intend to add at least a little detail on what the modern ruins are like, and more photos if they can be found.

Good luck with your project, and thank you for the help!

[I had this posted on the wrong page and just now moved it over.]