User:Millsnaps/Seljuk Empire/Figapartmenttoast Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Millsnaps


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Millsnaps/Seljuk_Empire?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Seljuk Empire

Evaluate the drafted changes
There are no changes to the lead, as the edits are solely an addition to the section on the arts of the Seljuk Empire. It could be briefly noted in the lead that the Seljuk Empire had a significant impact on the book arts in Anatolia.

There is a significant amount of content changes added. There is a split in the focus between ceramics and architecture and focus on book arts, but because both sections are well fleshed out, I don't think it detracts from the article. There is no information that shouldn't be there -- on the whole, this is an incredibly detailed and well-written addition to the Wikipedia article. All the content is up to date and reflects research done by the leading art historians on the arts of the Seljuk Empire. The addition also flows well with the rest of the article. This is an excellent addition to fill historically underrepresented gaps -- there previously had been no information on the arts of the Seljuk Empire, and this addition has legitimately opened my eyes to the ceramics and the manuscript arts of the period.

I'm not sure if including "Hillenbrand reminds those who take interest in these early manuscripts of their ultimate susceptibility to damage in comparison to other forms of physical artifacts." in the section on Hillenbrand's comments may be a little superfluous? It feels like there's a change in tone here.

There is an instance of the use of "Koranic" -- I'm not sure if Qur'anic would be better here? Wikipedia seems to have a norm of using Qur'an as opposed to Koran.

The tone is neutral and well-balanced and does not attempt to persuade the reader towards any one viewpoint. Views by all relevant art historians are well represented. The article is clear and concisely written, and the images are well-incorporated.

The article is very well-cited, with citations after each inclusion of unique information. The links I clicked on all worked. There are some sources missing links, but I believe those are books? I'm not sure if they were accessed online or in-person -- if they were online, would it be possible to include the links? All potential biases (differing interpretations from art historians) are accurately attributed. There is also a good distribution of sources from encyclopedias and from articles published by leading scholars.

My only organizational comment is on the organization/inclusion of the information on the bronze works. Might this be better if flushed out and placed in its own section, the way ceramics and architecture are? Also, should ceramics and architecture be split up? I was also thinking of how it may be possible to incorporate images already in the text into the revisions? Maybe using them as examples and referring to them perhaps?

Overall impression: I'm very impressed by this addition. There was obviously a lot of time and thought put into this and it's a very significant contribution to the article on the Seljuk Empire, especially as the article previously did not mentioned the arts at all. My only comments would be on organization (splitting up the section on book arts perhaps?)