User:Melinasr/Blue Quran/Mbuyer2 Peer Review

Lead:


 * The lead is a good preview of the article without being too detailed, although I would consider adding one sentence summarizing the "form" section because it's omitted currently. You could also add a sentence telling the current location of the manuscripts too. There is no information that is not present in the article.

Content:


 * The content is all relevant and seems up to date, especially looking at the date of source publications. It also seems like there have been changes in the literature about the origin of the manuscript so it is helpful that you are editing the article to reflect that.
 * When you say "research done by Cheryl Porter..." This is not helpful to me because I do not know who Cheryl Porter is. I would either include a two word description of who she is as an expert or only include the reference to her work (I'm not sure how Prof. Brey wants us to do this.)

Tone and balance:


 * Tone and balance are great- seems neutral and does not include opinions. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it looks like you are drawing from a variety of sources including journals, universities and museums. I'm glad you removed phrasing such as "hotly debated."
 * I do not feel as though I'm being persuaded in one direction or another.
 * The section "Controversy of Origin" is a bit confusing for me. I'm wondering if you could structure it by explicitly stating you will share 3 of the possible origins of the manuscript and then explaining each clearly before transitioning to the next. I like the idea of them in separate paragraphs if you want to keep it that way, but it is still confusing to keep track of how many theories there are and how much scholarship is behind each of them.

References:


 * I checked ~10 of the references and the links all worked. I've noticed that other articles don't always have links, so it is great that yours does so that readers can access the sources. Many of the sources are from more recent years and there is a variety as I mentioned before. I see references to experts like Jonathan Bloom and it seems like there are both male and female authors represented.

Organization:


 * The language is easy to read. It seems like you are trying to vary the sentence structure, as would make sense in a normal paper. In this case, I think I'm getting a bit confused by it and would benefit more from simple sentences. Instead of saying "the manuscripts approximately 600 folios..." You could say "The manuscript contains/has approximately 600 folios. They were separated and dispersed throughout the ottoman empire." Essentially, using more, shorter sentences rather than packing the information into one sentence. (I'm going to go fix this in my own article as well now) :)
 * I would also consider removing the sentence "the controversy affects scholars even today." This seems informal for wikipedia. You could change it to "There is still ongoing controversy among scholars today." The "For example" transition is not necessary and implies that there are other examples you are not listing.
 * I'm not sure if I like the section title "Form." If this is customary for similar manuscripts, then definetely keep it. If not, I'm wondering if there is a more descriptive title? Or, "Manuscript form" instead?
 * I don't think the Current status of manuscript section should be under the larger history umbrella. I don't think the history umbrella headline is necessary since there is only one section that belongs under it.

Images:


 * The images are captioned well and it seems like they are from the Wiki commons page we should be using
 * I see that there are different labels for the image but I can't tell the difference between the two. I would consider removing or replacing one of the images to avoid redundancy for someone who is not familiar with the topic.
 * They are laid out well on the side of the page and large enough for me to notice but not so large that they are distracting.

Overall: Your content definitely adds to the article and it is clear that you have done research on this topic. The strengths of the article are the sources, unbiased opinion, images and depth of information on the controversy. I would improve the simplicity of sentences to make it easier for the reader, consider replacing one of the images, and clarify the number of theories in the controversy section.

I am obviously not an expert on this topic and I tried to be as straightforward as possible in this feedback. If you have any specific questions about the article or the feedback I'm happy to discuss! Great job, this looks like it was a lot of work :)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)