User:Kentwpeters/Islamic manuscripts/Georgialeakey Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kentwpeters and Lucymcginnis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kentwpeters/Islamic manuscripts


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Islamic manuscripts

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.)

The paragraph on the Scientific Manuscripts of Timbuktu that was written for the Scientific Manuscripts sections is well written and clearly introduces the new aspect of the article subject. Their edits are all very neutral and informative, and all of their work is properly cited as far as I can tell. I think that the information that they added was necessary to add as it was underdeveloped and underrepresented in the existing article.

These are the few changes that I suggest the authors make to their edits:

In the "Evolution of Quranic Calligraphy and Technique" section, there is one use of the word "Quranic" that isn't capitalized, I believe that it should be capitalized.

The word "sura" in the "Structure and Order of Quranic Manuscripts" should be spelled as "surah."

The image that was added to the article is properly cited, but could use a description underneath it instead of just saying "Figure 1"

Really interesting contributions and very well written! Good job! Apologies for the late peer-review.