User talk:Howels1/sandbox/Alba Bible

Peer Review
I think your work shows a lot of really great research that you've done and I think so far you've done some really excellent work. I really admire the way you've broken up the information into these sections and I feel inspired for my own project on how to continue. I've tried to break down my suggestions into each segment to make it easy to read but if you have any questions please feel free to either respond here or in class.

Intro

Maybe refer to some of the new parts you've added in your intro when you're closer to completing the whole project. The previous intro was already pretty good but you could probably squeeze in some new information here.

History

No notes, I see you didn't add anything here but I don't blame you it seems like the previous person did a lot of the work already.

Maybe the only thing would be you could maybe add some of the things you have in contents into this section instead, like the first two sections of Content could probably fit here better than in a section talking about what's inside the book.

Contents

Wonderful job expanding on the paragraph written by the previous author, your work feels really seamless and I think some of your strongest work so far is in this section.

You could maybe move the stuff you added starting with "This manuscript..." into the signfigance, as to me this feels more like the context for why this is important.

Also try to avoid using the phrase "an example of this" twice in a row.

You might need to elaborate more on why including the part about the "serpentine like intention" is relevant to what you're talking about. I can almost understand why as I'm assuming it's relevant to the miniatures but at the moment it feels a little random to me. I'm sure you have a reason but you might need to make that reason more obvious.

I'm also not totally sure what you're trying to say in the last sentence about the bibles being collaborative so maybe expand on that?

Significance

Really respect making this a section I think that's a great idea and gives you a lot to work with.

Maybe explain why it was too ambitious? Like what happened when they tried to do it did they succeed or not?

Try to find a synonym for significant so you don't use it twice here.

"By multiple people" maybe specify what kind of multiple types of people you mean, like different kinds of social strata?

"An argument made" maybe reword this as it sounds like the information youre providing is subjective? Say something like "there was a determined effort" or something even more neutral.

Modern history

Modern history is also a great idea for a section. I'm going to steal that, haha.

Maybe just me but seeing the word euros and then the dollar sign in the next line feels a little off? Maybe consider replacing that with the euro sign or make the other one say dollars. Might just be a nitpick.

I dont totally understand what you mean by "in the history of this bible" so maybe reword for clarity?

I also notice some of the information here is repeated from stuff the previous author covered. I think to warrant having this information twice you might want to focus on expanding about the facts that are repeated. Like even maybe giving context like saying "other bibles sold for 1.6 million" or something like that. Just I think adding more here gives justification for the information to be repeated.

Overall really great work. I'm actually jealous because I feel like you could probably write the other 500 words just expanding on things you've already done. Like I said, if you have any questions feel free to ask me during class or just reply here. Ilikepzones (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)