User talk:Mamasanogo81/sandbox

General info Mama Sango https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mamasanogo81/sandbox Lead Guiding questions: Yes it has. Yes it does. DoYes it does No it does not The lead is concise? Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions: Yes it is? I can only tell by the sources but yes there are. Yes, but I assume his article isn't all the way finished. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Yes the content is neutral. No, everything is factally based. No viewpoints are over-represented in or under-represented No it does not. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions: Yes all the content is backed by reliable sources. Yes the sources are thorough. Yes the sources are current. I checked the links, yes they all work. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions: The article is well written and easy to understand. I see no spelling or grammatical errors that I can tell. The content and organized by subject which is easy for the readers to understand. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Yes it does. No they are not. I think so. damages are laid out in a visually pleasing and easy to understand organization. General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Link to draft you're reviewing: Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughan219 (talk • contribs)

Prof. Neumeier comments
Hi Mama, a few comments:

--You NEED to paraphrase information found in secondary sources in your own words, instead of relying too much on quotations, which is especially the case in your section on Characteristics of the Kufic Script.

--If you mention scholars that you are citing in the main text, provide their full name, like Sheila Blair instead of just Blair. Also, you do not need to mention the names of the scholars in the main text every single time you use information found in their work, the footnote is sufficient.

--Make sure that your new sections do not repeat information in the second paragraph of the article, which begins, "The Qur'an was first written in a plain, slanted, and uniform script but, when its content was formalized..." I see some overlapping information between what is on the article already and your new edits.

--At one point you misspell Fraser as Frazer, correct this.

--I would edit the caption for the Blue Qur'an image to delete the date 1020 (we do not know that for sure) and replace it with 8-9th centuries

--you refer to Maryam Ekhtiar by her first name in the main text, if you do that, you should refer to her by her full name or just last name (Ekhtiar)

And some edits to your text:

--"Calligraphers in early Islamic period," TO "Calligraphers in the early Islamic period,"

--"Arabic Calligraphy became one of the most important branches of Islamic Art. The word calligraphy is defined as beautiful writing." TO "Arabic calligraphy became one of the most important branches of Islamic art. The word calligraphy itself can be defined as beautiful writing."

--"In fact, the name derives from Kufa, a city in southern Iraq which was considered as an intellectual center within the Islamic period and where it was first used. Kufic is defined as a highly angular form of the Arabic alphabet originally used in copies of the Qur’an made at Kufa (Iraq)." TO "In fact, the name derives from Kufa, a city in southern Iraq which was considered as an intellectual center within the early Islamic period. Kufic is defined as a highly angular form of the Arabic alphabet originally used in early copies of the Qur’an." (As you might have read in Blair and George, the name "Kufic" seems to be a modern invention by art historians. We don't know exactly where the script was first used.)

--"Originally, the Kufic did not have a differentiate consonant. As for example, the letter "t, b, and th" says Al-Amin.[1] TO "Originally, Kufic did not have what is known as a differentiated consonant, which means, for example, that the letters "t", "b", and "th" were not distinguished by diacritical marks and looked the same. [1]"

--"throughout the Islamic World." [7]" (should not be in italics)

--"Arabic manuscript written in gold Kufic script on a blue Qur'an was amazing." TO "One impressive example of this early Qur'an manuscript features gold Kufic script on parchment dyed with indigo, known as the Blue Qur'an." And link to that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Qur%27an

--"the movement of the calamus (alif maqsura)" declares George.[3]" (I have no idea what this means, could you paraphrase in your own words so it is more clear to readers? I think he is talking about the movement of the reed pen.)

--"Kufic inscription was important in the emergence of textiles especially on Tiraz." TO "Kufic inscriptions were important in the emergence of textiles, often functioning as decoration in the form of tiraz bands."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by E Neumeier (talk • contribs)