User:Melinasr/Blue Quran/Reindeer.and.sloth Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

melinasr


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Melinasr/Blue Quran


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Blue Quran

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Response: I think your introductory sentence is good but you may consider adding the supposed date of creation to it as well. I appreciate the ways in which you have changed the Lead section for the better in terms of addressing the controversies related to the manuscript (see the 'Tone and Balance' section below, I've detailed this there). I think the Lead would not be hurt by adding in a little more. You mention it is one of the most famous works of Islamic calligraphy, why is this? You could add that in with a sentence or two. This information isn't really present anywhere in the article. What differentiates it from other manuscripts created at this time? In addition to why the calligraphy is considered one of the best, is it also famous because of its origin controversy?

Content

Guiding questions:

'' Is the content added relevant to the topic? ''

'' Is the content added up-to-date? ''

'' Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? ''

'' Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? ''

Response: I think you have succeeded very well in this regard. All the content seems relevant and you make good use of your research to streamline the way the article is structured and written. I appreciate your additions to the 'Form' section.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

'' Is the content added neutral? ''

'' Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? ''

'' Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? ''

'' Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? ''

Response: The topic you have research seems like one which has had contesting opinions on but from what you have written, you have kept a good neutral tone. As I was first reading the original article in comparison with your edited version, I felt that there was a discrepancy in content presented (particularly the lead section), but as I read through the details carefully I realized it is saying the same thing but you have been able to improve it by adding in a more balanced approach - instead of mentioning the timeline of the Tunisia / Spain theories (which got complicated) you have simply presented both. This however does let me realize that the nature of this topic is subject to different arguments and if someone were to use just wikipedia (and not the references linked) to get an accurate picture they need to be presented an article covering all facets possible. I do think you have done a good job at improving this.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

'' Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? ''

'' Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? ''

'' Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? ''

'' Are the sources current? ''

'' Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? ''

'' Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? ''

'' Check a few links. Do they work? ''

Response: It's commendable that all your references have clickable links embedded, this will help people find their own research using your article as a starting point. Since this is a topic of ongoing academic debate, it's good that you have a range of source years that date up to 2018. I'm sure you have searched for diverse perspectives about the topic while doing your research. I also like that your sources also include broader topics in Islamic art as a whole and not just the Blue Quran in question. I might be mistaken about this, but I think your 17th reference (Sotheby's) should be cited on the sentence following the one it has been cited on currently.

Organization

Guiding questions:

'' Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? ''

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

'' Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? ''

Response: Your content is easy to read and I appreciate the changes you have made to improve the flow for the reader. The switching around of the 'History' and 'Form' subsections works well in this case. One suggestion I have is in the 'Form' section - I feel like the information about the rosettes and their use in manuscripts seems rather abrupt in the middle of talking about material and medium. I wonder if your last paragraph in this section (about the script, lines and letters) could be placed first to get an overview about the manuscript's content. This could be followed by discussion about the materials used and would help better contextualize for the reader what is being talked about.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

'' Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? ''

'' Are images well-captioned? ''

'' Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? ''

'' Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? ''

Response: I think both the images you have used are good, but they are very similar to each other. Perhaps there are images to be found of the oxidized rosettes you spoke about? Maybe a map showing the relative distances between Spain/Tunisia and Persia/Tunisia that you write about in the 'Controversy of Origin' subsection? Your pictures are well captioned, and from what I can tell seem to adhere with Wikipedia's copyright policies. I noticed the original article did not have both images stacked on top of each other but one on the left and one on the right, this might help your layout.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

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

'' What are the strengths of the content added? ''

'' How can the content added be improved? ''

Response: Overall, I think you have done a great job at making this article seem clearer and presenting all the points fairly and cohesively. I think you have improved on the earlier article by only talking about the subsection's topic in those sections, and not merging sections. It is clear that this article is about a controversial subject but you have managed to present this controversy in an objective and non-participatory way. Nice work, looking forward to read it when you finalize it! :)