User:Srmcg/Dura-Europos synagogue/VivecaFitz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ClaireMarieR


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Srmcg/Dura-Europos synagogue


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Claire! I love what you have so far. Very clear and concise!

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant. It gives precise details about construction and material composition. Personally, I was quite intrigued by the notes about Greek and Aramaic inscriptions.

Is the content added up-to-date? There is a range of sources from 1937-2011. I think this gives an accurate and thorough depiction of the development of scholarly opinion on this topic. It might be nice to have one article that is more recent. However, if there are none available, then 2011 still provides the modern perspective.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't see any content that does not belong. It is all very focused on the specific aspect of the ceiling. The information is in depth and informative without being wordy and confusing.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? This article highlights key information about this building which is not easily accessible to the public.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral? Yes. There are clear facts without heated and controversial opinion. It is descriptive without bias.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I can tell. There are clear citations. Also, there is transparency when scholars don't have the answer. - "However, some uncertainty remains due to the paint not being *recognizable on the tile after sun exposure. A total of 234 tiles were discovered and brought back at the time of discovery. However, there may be more that were destroyed and different designs that had not been discovered." (P3, S11) I think this both gives insight into the discipline and piques the curiosity of the viewer.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, viewpoints are clear. It is fact-based so there aren't issues with controversy.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. This article is one of straightforwardness and clarity. The tone reads as informative, not persuasive.

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are clear citations which are very easy to access. Another footnote at the very end of the article (after "...their involvement is evident") might be helpful. It would just help establish more roots for the information about the inscriptions.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes, the article draws from the sources but does not plagiarize. Everything is cited well and gives the reader insight into the articles without reading them in full.

Are the sources thorough? The sources are very thorough and give the most full picture about available scholarship on this subject.

Are sources current? There is a range of dates. They provide a cohesive glance at how scholarship has both developed and maintained viewpoints.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? They are all scholars of from different times in the development of art history as a discipline.

Are there better sources available? These are all very scholarly and reliable sources.

Links? There are links (at the bottom with the sources and in the in-text citations). I found it very easy to access the articles.

Organization, Images, and Media
The organization flowed well so the information was easy to understand. Some images of pictorial tiles or the inscriptions might add a nice visual balance to your info.

Overall Impressions
How can content added be improved?

* This is a very small detail but "recognisable" is the British spelling (P3, S11). I'm only mentioning this because "recognizable" is the American spelling and it threw me off when I read it with an "s." I think either spelling is perfectly fine.

I would love to hear more about the background of the retransformation that you mention in your first sentence.

What are the strengths of the content added?

You do a wonderful job of communicating vital information about this work with very few words.Your second paragraph is a great example of this.

I also appreciate how many focused details you provide about the pictorial symbolism. I loved the description your description of the evil eye, Capricorn, and Pisces. I also think this is a great addition because it seems like something that would catch the eye of a larger audience.

Awesome job, Claire! I can't wait to read your final product!