User talk:KhaliaM/Ebbo Gospels

Peer Review (week 10 wikipedia assignment)
A lead section that is easy to understand: After comparing the original state of the wikipedia page, I can definitely see that you added numerous related sections for the Ebbo Gospels. The lead section for “History” is very clear and is easy to understand. I think it improves the brief section entitled “Date” that was in its place previously. I noticed that you still included the information that fell under the “Date” section at the end of your revitalized “History” section. The information included was concise and related well to the history of the creation of the Ebbo Gospels.

A clear structure: The structure is very clear to read through and made sense in the order you organized them in. I liked how you placed the history section first, which gives the reader a good introduction and background into the Ebbo Gospels, followed up by the “Style” section. Furthermore, the subsections under the “Style” section were also clear and made sense in their placement within the Wikipedia article. The “Provenance” section at the end was also clear in it’s structural placement, as it seems fitting for a reader to start with history, get introduced to the use of style, and follow up with its provenance.

Balanced coverage: There is a good balance of coverage between the three sections. I did notice that the “Style” section is longer than the rest, however, it is balanced in the way you divided up the information into smaller subheadings.

Neutral content: After reading through your additions to the article and reviewing changes you made to the previously included information, I think that the content is neutral in tone and does not contain any biases.

Reliable sources: I clicked on each of the external links for your sources. All of them came from reliable and academic sources, including Smarthistory, Khan Academy, etc. Userart105 (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Rmmiller364 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)