User:Zbrooks142/Toledan Tables/GideonTrismegistus Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zbrooks142


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zbrooks142/Toledan_Tables?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Toledan Tables

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.)

The lead is mostly fine, the first two sentences work well to introduce the topic and their importance. I do think it might be beneficial to restructure the lead to also include parts of the second paragraph. It would be good to describe who made the tables, and where in that first immediate blurb. It's also of note that the article does not really describe how the tables were used, just what they were used for with no expansion.

The added content is very relevant and well cited. What stands out the most to me is the lack of links to other articles, for instance I felt that mean motion parameters would probably have a Wikipedia page and it does. A link there would be great and improve the connectivity of Wikipedia. The third paragraph does seem unnecessary as it was fully stated in the first sentence of the article and is uncited. If needed you could put "(ephemerides)" after the link to astronomical tables.

The content added is neutral, however it might be wise to remove some of the claim by changing the wording. Perhaps instead of "The most important independent contribution" it could be "An important contribution of the tables". I took out independent since it seems implied, unless I understand your meaning incorrectly.

Sourced well, the references do look confusing/repetitive but I assume that is something that will be cleaned up later.

The content added does improve the article overall, specific notes on why the Toledan tables improved on existing works highlight the importance of them. In a way, additions like these justify the need for a page on this topic and it's many references elsewhere. I would highly recommend changing the wording, at least to remove "most" and linking the mean motion page (Mean motion). GideonTrismegistus (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)