User talk:Niralidevgan/sandbox

Article Evaluation (Wikipedia Tutorials):  There has been some mention on the talk page for the article, Arabian Peninsula in the Roman Era, about bias against Romans through using language which demonstrated their lack of ability to conquer the peninsula. I think this is a worthwhile point to bring up when mentioning its neutrality as one could paint the war and battle of land as more uneven than it actually was. The citations do work and I think that while the article is short, the summary is accurate and helpful in creating a quick, thorough picture. The places where I see for improvement include adding more date information as well as being more thorough in the initial Roman Empire/Arabian Peninsula interactions.

Article Selctions (Wikipedia Tutorials) Ardabil Carpet: expand more upon the succession of the carpet, how and where it traveled, a description of carpets and rugs at the time

Müezzin mahfili: no examples of actual ones in mosques, no discussion of etymology or origin story, just a very basic six sentence explanation, no to very little citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niralidevgan (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Emily Petro

 * I really liked the way you organized the information in your article! It has a much more intelligible flow than the original Wikipedia article does, and I think you did a great job separating the mixed-up information in there and integrating it into what you’ve written.  I’m sure you probably haven’t had the chance to integrate all of the chunks of the original article into your work, but I’m sure you’ll do a great job with that as well.
 * I also like how you laid out the “History” section in chronological order—these carpets clearly have a long and winding history, with many people and institutions involved, and you did a great job of laying that out carefully. As you keep editing, I think adding links to other Wikipedia articles whenever you can will break up the big block of text and will be helpful for the uninitiated reader!
 * I was a bit confused by the layout of the “Site Background” section. For example, why is Shi’i Islam relevant here?  (Was it because the Ardebil mosque was a Shi’i mosque?)  Shah Isma’il and the Safavid dynasty are also introduced without much context.  I also got confused when I read about the shrine (which was mentioned in the first sentence) in the last sentence of the paragraph, and I had to look back to see what you were talking about.  I think this section could benefit from more explicit transitions in between sentences (and maybe some re-organization, but I obviously don’t know how the chronology of events came about), and some more explicit information on Shah Tahsmap and how he created the carpets (if you can find any).  I think it would also be helpful for the uninitiated reader if you explicitly mentioned that the carpets came from the Ardebil mosque (is that right?), and then led into the site background.  (Also, does the shrine = the Ardebil mosque?  Or is it something else?)
 * At the beginning of the “History” section, I would change the first instance of “the V&A” to “the Victoria and Albert Museum,” because I didn’t know what that was until I kept reading.
 * I would replace phrases like “a couple hundred years later,” “later on” and “as years progressed” with concrete dates, because those phrases don’t give much information to the uninitiated reader.
 * I would either break up or rephrase this sentence in the "History" section: “When the Victoria and Albert Museum began to check out the piece in 1914, the historical consensus came to be that the modifications on the current Los Angeles Ardabil to repair the London Ardabil were managed by Ziegler and Company, the first buyer of the carpets from Persian resident Hildebrand Stevens, supposedly using Tabriz or Turkish craftsmen.” The sentence has a ton of information in it, and I got a little tripped up by the passive voice.
 * I would also put the information from the last paragraph of the “History” section at the beginning of the paragraph (or even in the “site background”) section, because I think that offers the reader some very helpful context. (Again, I totally get that you may not have had time to move that around, so that’s just a suggestion!)

--Emilyrosepetro (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This section needs copyediting: Later on, as years progressed and news came out referencing the lack of authenticity and a second Ardabil carpet, the intrigue and power in the social eye increased even more. When the Victoria and Albert Museum began to check out the piece in 1914, the historical consensus came to be that the modifications on the current Los Angeles Ardabil to repair the London Ardabil were managed by Ziegler and Company, the first buyer of the carpets from Persian resident Hildebrand Stevens, supposedly using Tabriz or Turkish craftsmen. The second Ardabil could see visible changes in its structure, as seen in the LACMA image, with its borders replaced into a newly woven narrow line while the London Ardabil was thoroughly over-restored.

For the "site background" section, I would clarify the importance of Ardabil for the Safavids, and give a quick overview of the site. If there is an article on the Ardabil shrine as such, you can also link it there.

Pdblessing (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Pdblessing (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)