User:Kbtkxh/Urania Propitia/TheVictorGoesTheSpoils Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Username: Kbtkxh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kbtkxh/Urania Propitia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Urania Propitia

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.)

Your article is very lean on information. It is very concise and gets the point across, with a good number of citations. Something I would change is the over usage or duplication of words.

I would also be wary of using exact or broken up phrasing from your source material. For example: "Cunitz simplified Kepler's work by removing logarithms and increasing accuracy." (what you wrote.), "She corrected many of Kepler's errors and simplified his calculations by removing logarithms." (Source)

Most of the stuff you wrote is taken directly from the source material, and not expounded upon much. It should be a faithful interpretation of the Charting a Path section on page 37, and understood in the context of the section. Its something more to add to your article in the end.

I really do like your article, its a very interesting window to seeing women in stem as well as the way journals worked back in the early 1600's.

Peer Review Response
Thank you so much for your comments and suggestion in your review. I did not realize I had overused words and plan on editing it to remove this issue. I also will make sure I am not accidentally going back to the sources wording when using my notes. I definitely plan on adding more context where possible, but only minimal is available outside of the few sources I’ve found and used as there is very little writing in English about Urania Propitia. Thank you again for your review.