User:Markwhite01/Morgan Casket/Daylightandmidnightrain Peer Review

General info
Markwhite01
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Markwhite01/Morgan casket
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Morgan Casket

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Mark! Here’s my Peer Review:

Overall Impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes! The original article had hardly any information, and definitely nothing that was very descriptive about the imagery. The content that has been added has really improved the overall quality and made it more complete and engaging.


 * First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The iconography section is so thorough; it really impressed me! Describing the work panel by panel really helped give an extensive overview to the entire work. I like the sentence, “While there are no women in the panel this and other panels make it clear that the males of the royal court are superior to the women as they fight the animals and defend the empire” because it suggests the gender imbalances in the work.


 * What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I would try to find more on the Provenance, or just put the information there into a narrative paragraph instead of separate lines to help create an engaging and cohesive narrative. If there is enough information, I also think a Production section could be interesting because you could include some information about Medieval ivory carving techniques and where specifically it was carved. The second paragraph of the Description section could be moved to Production if you decide to add that in!


 * What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think the main thing is just adding in citations to back up what has been written! The Wikipedia trainings essentially say that each sentence should have a citation at the end of it, which is a good rule of thumb to follow!


 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

The measurements for the casket are in the Description section, whereas I put mine under Production, but I do think it makes more sense to have them in Description! I’ll be updating my article.

Lead


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

The lead is the same as the one in the original article, but I do feel that it is a concise introduction to the Morgan Casket. It states the importance of the object because of the influence of Islamic style.


 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

After reading the rest of the article, I would maybe add a sentence into the lead about the box depicting scenes of animals and hunters. Something like, “The carvings on the box show hunters in pursuit of animals.”


 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

The lead is nice and concise, so nothing redundant. Per my response to the last question, the only thing I can think of as missing is a brief sentence describing the subject matter/iconography since that is a large part of the article.

Structure/Organization


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

The sections are in a logical order; I don’t have any suggestions for improvement here!

Balanced Coverage


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

The Provenance section seems perhaps a bit short, and may read better as a paragraph rather than separate lines. Something to add to the Provenance section is how the Morgan Casket came into the MET Museum’s possession. Otherwise, everything seems necessary and on-topic. The only section I might add is one on Production, but only if the production techniques of the work is known. Iconography does seem long in comparison to the other sections, but I also think that the Iconography of the work is one of the most fascinating bits. Maybe combining some of the smaller paragraphs in the Iconography section would make it seem not as long?


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The word “images” needs to be capitalized in the sentence, “images carved on the Casket are dressed…” under Iconography in the first paragraph. I’m also not sure if “Casket” needs to be capitalized throughout the article unless it is being referred to as specifically “Morgan Casket”? I could be wrong though! In Provenance, the sentences end with a semicolon, so I would just change those to periods. There are a few double spaces here and there, but otherwise everything looks great! Very polished!


 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

One thing I noted in the “Art and Architecture of the Islamic World…” article by Emily Andrews is how the Morgan Casket reinforces traditional gender roles with its images. This Wikipedia article draft does mention that the panels “make it clear that the males of the royal court are superior,” but I would even put this in the lead section or in the first paragraph of the Iconography section, like a topic sentence introducing this theme. Something very simple but straightforward like, “The depictions of men and women on the casket reinforce traditional gender roles.”


 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

Not at all! It is very balanced.

Neutral Content


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

There are no obvious perspectives shared, so no.


 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?

In the second paragraph of the Description section, there are three uses of the word “best.” I think a way to remedy this is to say something like, “Professor ___ states in their book ____ that the Morgan Casket is one of the best carvings made in Norman Sicily.”


 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people?

Not as far as I can tell!


 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information?

No, everything seems balanced.

Reliable Sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

The MET Museum pages are definitely reliable sources. The only source that seems perhaps questionable is the article by Emily Andrews, because it may be a blog? The URL suggests that it was maybe a blog post made by a student for an ARTH27501 Course at Bucknell University. Also because there are no citations for the article, I would definitely fact check what is written here to make sure it’s reputable.


 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

Most statements draw from the MET museum websites and the article by Emily Andrews, so I think finding one or two other sources would really help strengthen this article and could help with fact checking!


 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

The Iconography section is lacking citations, so I would just recommend adding those in. The Description section also has a few sentences without citations. None of the statements within the article seem super outlandish; they just need to be matched to the sources they came from!

I would also encourage adding citations to sentences like, “The image also suggests that these royals would apply their strength and bravery in overcoming their enemies and those challenging their authority to rule,” because it is unclear who is suggesting this interpretation. Other examples are “He is reclining suggesting more strength and courage while the lion is attacking” and “The position of the woman relaxing on the howdah and the birds highlight the passive role of women.” They do seem like credible sentences and make sense entirely, but just make sure that these interpretations are found in credible sources!

I found another article at the MET that mentions the Morgan Casket: [https://www.metmuseum.org/articles/mesmerizing-ivories-and-their-making. https://www.metmuseum.org/articles/mesmerizing-ivories-and-their-making.]

There is a book that is free to read online or download as a PDF that has a few pages (starting on p. 70) on the Morgan Casket: [https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/Masterpieces_from_the_Department_of_Islamic_Art_in_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/Masterpieces_from_the_Department_of_Islamic_Art_in_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.]

This book can also be read online or downloaded as a PDF and has some information on the casket:

[https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/A_Handbook_of_Mohammedan_Decorative_Arts. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/A_Handbook_of_Mohammedan_Decorative_Arts.]

Hope this helps! Your article looks great so far and was very easy to read while also incredibly informative!