User:Kentwpeters/Islamic manuscripts/Hopemanning7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Lucymcginnis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Islamic manuscripts


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

Lucy's Peer Review:
I enjoyed reading your strong contributions to this article. It is surprising that the article failed to include all of this valuable information beforehand, so I am glad you have added it in! Most of my suggestions regard sentence-level errors however I have a few larger suggestions as well.

My biggest suggestion for you and Kent is for you to take a look at the ‘Manuscripts’ Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript) and look at how sparse the ‘Islamic world’ section is. I believe you can maximize your contributions by moving some of the information/work you have already done to this general article. The article already has the ‘Islamic manuscripts’ article linked to it, so it is just a matter of moving over more content. I am going to suggest that Kent do this part as it seems like he has fewer contributions than you thus far.

Another suggestion I have to visually help your article is to add a few more photos to it. Specifically, as I was reading, I thought it might be helpful for there to be photos for the ‘hijazi’ script section or a photo of the marble inscription found in the Dome of the Rock. With this, I thought the picture you added [Fig. 1] was a great addition to your illumination section. The formatting, however, does not follow Wiki conventions; I recommend adding a citation caption (base it off of the photos included earlier in the article) and getting rid of the [Fig. 1] that is in your paragraph. Having [Fig. 1] is more of a paper convention than a Wikipedia one.

Lastly, I think it would enhance your article to add a few more hyperlinks throughout. Some places that come to mind are: Abd-al-Malik and frontispiece. As for some smaller, grammatical errors, I made a list of things to look back on:

-       Be sure to add the ‘ in Qur’an and Qur’anic as you have it as Quran and Quranic in some sections –– this keeps the spelling consistent throughout and boosts your credibility as an author

-       If you are going to call the section ‘Religious Manuscripts’ then change the next section from ‘Scientific’ to ‘Scientific Manuscripts’

-       This wasn’t one of the sentences you contributed but the sentence right under ‘Genres’ is a rather bad way (grammatically) to start the section –– I recommend changing the sentence to “include a variety of topics such as religion, medicine, astrology, and literature”

-       Safavid dynasty is a ‘is’ not a ‘were’ or ‘are’ (i.e., “the Safavid dynasty were also known” should be “is also known”)

-       Sentences to look back on for grammatical errors:

o   “and [don’t] display any sort of iconography” instead of “do”

o   “to represent each section of text without while keeping”

o   “rose, hyacinth, [and] tulip motifs”

o   “build a manufacturing studio [in] Istanbul”

Overall, you should be proud of the vast contributions you have made to this article, keep up the good work!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Kentwpeters


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Islamic manuscripts


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

Kent's Peer Review:
I am happy that you added this section to the article seeing how important the Timbuktu manuscripts are. A broader suggestion that I have for you that I also mentioned above in Lucy’s peer review is to add to the ‘Manuscript’ Wikipedia article section on the Islamic world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript) by linking some of the paragraphs in this article to that one. This is a concrete and not very labor-intensive way to make bigger contributions as a whole. As I said before, I recommend you be the one to do this as Lucy’s sections are more extensive than yours.

That being said, it wouldn’t hurt to add a bit more content to this section. Specifically, I wish there were more examples of each discipline that you mention: mathematics, astronomy, astrology, and medicine. If you get enough content on each of these you can even create subsections within this section. I believe this would greatly strengthen your section as you only provide examples for astrology and medicine as it is.

There are also some formatting issues in yours. For one, the title of your section has an [edit] at the end of it so I would go back and delete this. There is also no need to cite the title of your section. As for footnotes, they go at the end of sentences so be sure to move footnote 15 to the end of the sentence. I would also go back and make sure you are not missing any citations when you talk about scientific manuscripts. One small error is it says “the use minerals” instead of “the use of minerals” and “Islamic Framework” should be “Islamic framework.”

Good luck to both of you as we wrap up the project and well done on your contributions to the article!