User:Maclainemary/Islamic ornament/Hopemanning7 Peer Review

I think you chose a strong article to edit that had a rather weak foundation to begin with which you have clearly enhanced with your edits. It was especially wise to add a whole section on the theories behind Islamic Ornament –– this really strengthened the article overall. Also, your minor edits in the first couple of sections add more cohesion to the paragraphs through smooth transitions.

With some minor edits I think you can strengthen it even further. Some small details that will visually enhance it include adding more hyperlinks to key terms and adding some more photos from Wiki Commons. As I was reading, a few terms I thought might be useful if linked to another article include: the names of your theorists (Owen Jones, Oleg Grabar etc.) and the Alhambra.

Moving onto some content recommendations, under the ‘Overview’ section in your last sentence you mention some Umayyad palaces that have similar forms. It might be helpful to the reader to explicitly state some concrete examples of these palaces, and perhaps include a hyperlink or photo of them. Another opportunity for a photo is in your Theories section, specifically when talking about “circles, squares, rhombs, dodecagons, and stars.”

Overall, I found your contributions to be strong and your sentences powerful. There were a few sentences that I think can use a little bit of work, mostly in terms of elaborating on your point. Under the first paragraph of the last sentence in Theories you write, “its decorative qualities seem to complete an objet (typo here needs fixing) by providing it with quality.” I would elaborate on “quality” or find a way to put this in more specific, academic terms. I found your last few points under Theories to be especially powerful, especially your idea of ornament as a vehicle and the misconceptions of arabesques. The very last sentence stands out as weaker amongst these strong sentences and perhaps belongs earlier in the paragraph. I would elaborate or change your wording as having “made statements” is rather vague.

Lastly, I recommend going back and double-checking that everything is properly cited. I especially recommend this for your first and third paragraph under Theories. The sources you have included are scholarly and credible and it is clear you have done a lot of research and synthesizing for your Theories section.

Great work and I look forward to seeing how your article progresses!