User talk:Pottseee/sandbox/tickhillpsalter

Peer Review
Is there a lead section that is easy to understand?


 * I found the lead sections to be clear and helpful, though I would suggest that for the section "Unusual distinctive content of text" you shorten this to something a bit shorter (Like "content"). I think that it is easier to navigate when the titles are short and simple. You can include the information that the content is unusual and distinctive as a sort of introduction to the section.
 * I would also suggest making the Content section its own heading. I can see why you would include this in the history section, but I think it would make more sense for content to be its own separate area of information. It would also help break up the text a bit more and make it seem less bulky.

Is there a clear structure?


 * I think the structuring is very clear and effective, I just think it would be better to include more Headings that were not bold subheadings. History being the only main heading is fine, but I think you would benefit from adding more that helps people navigate where information is (I.e., Content, Production, etc)

Is there balanced coverage?


 * There is a decent balance of coverage, though I feel the history section is too heavy as its the only heading on the site. The history section could likely be split into three headings with subheadings beneath them. (Perhaps History / Background, Creation and Dating, and then Context as the big three areas of information.)
 * I also feel that there's a lot of information on the unusual content, but less on the actual background of the manuscript as an object.
 * Maybe include some more information in the creation and dating section on what the process was of making the manuscript (what is it made of, what colors and language is used, etc). Don't be afraid to get more specific on what this object is!

Neutral Coverage


 * I didn't find anything in the article to be biased or individualized and thought that it was written from a very neutral point of view that was only focused on stating the facts known about the object.

Reliable Sources


 * Your resources seem to be coming from publications like JSTOR, The New York Times, and Universities which all seem reliable to me. The other two sources that were listed also appear to be reliable, academic, sources which means they dont need to be removed. You could even use them to check for additional information that may not have been put onto the wikipedia page (you never know!). I know its hard to find sources for these obscure items, so I think you're doing a great job with what you've been able to find so far.

Additional Notes :


 * I noticed you added a translation in the beginning of the article, though I don't see the original text anywhere, so it makes it a bit hard to tell what is being translated. If it is the text that is in the image, then I would suggest adding another image that shows it better, or just add the original text to compare above the translation.
 * Add more links to people, terms, and objects that are mentioned that not all readers will recognize! (ex : Theobald de Verdon, St. Jerome of Bethlehem, Canticles, etc)
 * Overall great work so far!

Listeningstars (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)