User:Whita998/Guda/PhilChartier Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Whita998


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whita998/Guda?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Guda

Evaluate the drafted changes
Whit Anderson's Wikipedia article, "Guda," makes good use out of its sparse source base. To take it piece by piece, the initial "lead" of the article is very small; however, it is still more than twice the size of the original lead, which was a measly seven-worded sentence: "Guda was a 12th-century nun and illuminator." Anderson added another sentence, and though it may be a small addition, it is certainly an improvement over the original. He wrote that "She was one of the first women to create a self-portrait in a manuscript, setting a precedent for female Medieval illuminators and manuscript writers in the subsequent centuries." This adds significance to Guda's article, as it explains that she was not merely a "12th-century nun and illuminator," but was the very first woman to create a self-portrait. There are, however, a few things that could be done to improve the lead. For one, there are some minor spelling and grammatical issues to quibble about, such as the phrase "the first women" when it should state "the first woman." Also, the word "self portrait" should have a hyphen--"self-portrait"--and the word "Medieval" should not be capitalized. These are, of course, easy to fix and do not hurt the article in any significant way. Something that will be a bit harder is expanding the lead. This may not be possible considering the sparse source base that Anderson is working with, but if it can be done, the article would benefit from an additional sentence or two. Something more extracurricular that can be done is the addition of a few more links; for instance, the word "manuscript" in the lead could be linked to this article on Illuminated manuscript s. Again, most of these issues are small, and overall, Anderson wrote a good lead to Guda's article.

The article's "body" is where Anderson put most of his efforts. The first section of the body is also small, which again, is almost certainly due to a lack of primary sources. Much of this section is from the original Wikipedia editor(s), but Anderson's revision adds an important sentence, that Guda's "self portrait was symbolically placed in the ninth homily of St. John Chrysostom." This is beneficial as it demonstrates that Guda's self-portrait was admired in her own time, although, the addition of a date would help situate when this admiration occurred. As with the lead, if Anderson can do so, he should try to extend this section. The second and last section of the body is where the real 'meat' of Anderson's revision lies. The original article only offers a skimpy sentence in this section, but Anderson expanded it to five paragraphs. Though this section on "Legacy" does stray away from Guda and her life, this seems necessary. After all, if Guda is only known for this self-portrait of hers, then it is fair for Anderson to expand beyond her life. This section focuses on Guda's impact on future female illuminators and manuscript writers. He offers concrete examples of how her self-portrait inspired others, such as with "manuscript paintings like 'The Heart on the Cross,' which depicts a nun exchanging vows with a mystical bridegroom inside the heart of Jesus." He goes on to give a brief history of female illuminators and how they sought "reform" through their work--he wrote that this was done to change "how valued the nuns were in their order." Throughout the section, Anderson loads each sentence with citations, which is especially important considering that the original article only had two references (the revised article now has fourteen). Overall, this is the best section of the paper. There are a few suggestions to be made here, but perhaps the closing sentence could be tweaked a little more. The conclusion brings Guda back into the narrative--"Guda's contribution towards female Medieval illumination [...]"--but it comes off more as the conclusion to an argumentative essay than an informative Wikipedia article. It does not hurt the article too much, and--to break the fourth wall--I personally like it, but Anderson may want to consider re-wording the conclusion to make appear less argumentative.

As for the rest of the article, it could benefit from some additional pictures. It can be difficult to work around licensing, but Anderson should provide a little more visual information if possible. A picture of the previously mentioned "The Heart on the Cross," for instance, would be a nice addition. The references seem to be in good order--Anderson made a smart choice by including links to each and every source he used, which will help future researchers interested in Guda. Overall, the article is significantly improved. There are of course a few issues to quibble about--nothing's perfect--but most of these are small and could be fixed relatively easily. The only important issue is that the first two sections (the lead and first section of the body) are small. If Anderson can add some more information to these sections, the article would certainly benefit. Though Anderson had few primary sources to work with, he nevertheless made a significant and impressive revision of Guda's article.