User:Rizing153rose/Sadiqi Beg/Autonomous owl ch Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Editing Rizing153rose's draft on Sadiqi Beg. [Really enjoyed reading your article, Rizing153rose, and excited to get the chance to review it. Hope my feedback is helpful!]


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User: Rizing153rose/SadiqiBeg
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sadiqi Beg

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

I really enjoyed reading the lead section. It gave me much more in-depth information about Sadiqi Beg than the original article. The introductory sentence is concise and overarching on his overall career. The fact that you combined your own new research (about Sadiqi Beg working under Shah Abbas I) with the sentence in original article is a great way to ensure you are prioritizing research and information over just rewriting the entire introductory sentence. That sentence is much more specific and contextual in your draft.

The rest of the lead gave me a fair idea of Sadiqi Beg and his journey to painting. I especially like how you highlighted the two point of views present on where Sadiqi Beg is originally from (Afshar tribe vs. Khudabandalu tribe), so the reader understands there is some disagreement present on this issue. The lead is succinct and concise.

I would make a couple suggestions for your consideration. I think adding one or two sentences at the end of the lead about his time as a painter would really tie it together, in order to show the reader where the article is leading. Perhaps about his style of work would be a good choice. Right now, I have context on the beginning of the artist's journey but not a lot of description on the sections of the article that follow the lead about his work.

Content, Tone and Balance

Your content definitely bridges some equity gaps present in the article. The information you added is pertinent and very needed and it helps us understand how the artist got his beginning and his familial background. You integrate your own writing into the existing article, which ensures no information is wasted or discarded.

I like how your article does not favor any particular school of thought and remains very neutral, showing both sides of an argument. I am particularly referring to the Afshar vs. Khudabandalu tribe idea in the beginning and later in the body the question of whether Beg painted miniatures for the Anwar-i-Suhayli (1593). You keep both competing ideologies surrounding this debate to avoid any bias.

I have a couple of quick suggestion for the body paragraph. Much of this section is taken from the original article, without many additions and elaboration on them. More information can be added as to his influences, style and techniques used, other manuscripts he painted and his time at either the court of Shah Abbas I, Shah Isma'il II or in Lahijan, Hamadan or Yazd.

Sources and References

You cite all your statements and the references are scholarly articles, which is great. However, quite a few of your sources are similar to the original article without many additions of new resources. I am not sure if this is because of the limited scholarship available on Sadiqi Beg, but maybe adding more resources on his style of illustration would be helpful.

Overall Impression

I enjoyed this article. It was well-written, full of necessary and very relevant information and without any bias. You integrated your additions to the existing article well. I did not know much about Sadiqi Beg before and I felt like I had a good amount of preliminary information on him coming out of the article.

My recommendations for improvement would be to find more resources on the actual works of Sadiqi Beg, especially at each location the article mentioned (Yazd, Hamadan, and Lahijan). There could be more additional information added to the article, whereas right now the draft is very close to its original page. New sources could definitely take this article to the next level and make it even more informative on Sadiqi Beg and Persian painting. That was what I personally felt very curious about: what was his paintings like and what did he work on while he was in those three cities mentioned in the article.