User:Reindeer.and.sloth/History of books/Gusagyemang Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)Reindeer.and.sloth


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * History of books

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.)

Is everything in the article relevant to the topic?

Yes, I commend you for creating this section because it is thorough and easily comprehensible. Each section is well structured mainly because of the chronology you used. Nothing distracted me from reading this article. The images also complement the reading.

The first section of the Early Period was difficult to understand because of the tense, particularly with the last half "as notarial documents...". I Either end the sentence at "Arabic scrolls" or removing that and having "used for notarial documents..." would make it flow better.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article was neutral to me. There were no unfounded claims and most sentence was cited. There are a few sentences that are make claims that are not cited. For instance under Safavid Dynasty, the first four sentences are not cited. Other than that I did not find anything that seemed biased.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

I was able to access the citations that had links and the little I read supported the claims in the article. There are some earlier publication and later (2017).

I am not sure if there is a particular citation we are supposed to use for the sources, but they look like mine did. I would double check if there is a specific citation style we should be using.