Talk:Byzantine illuminated manuscripts
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ammartins916. Peer reviewers: Cameron.Gendreau.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
More feedback from Prof Mc (27 Nov 17):
- Background section:
Because there are general entries that already exist about Byzantine art and the Byzantine Empire, fortunately you don’t have to recap that level of general info. Instead you can use the top section to give a few sentences that overview key points about the significance/typical features of Byzantine illuminated manuscripts. Here’s how a prior student handled the top section for his entry on Byzantine silver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_silver
- Likewise you don’t have to explain what an illuminated manuscript is generally, you’d link to the pertinent entry on that topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript
- The subject matter categories are not as clear as they could be—it implies that all Byz mss fit these categories. What about other secular manuscripts, for instance?
- why is there a long description of chronologies (a rare mss type) and then just two sentences on the most common kind of mss, those used for church services (so probably better to make it clear they’re not private )
- Patronage: what about monastic patronage?
Overall there are some great tidbits in here, but it seems at times like a compilation of details you gleaned about specific mss, and there is not as much as there should be that makes sense of the topic for someone who hasn’t read extensively as you have (the bibliography looks great!). AMcClanan (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)AMcClanan
From Prof. Mc: I'm very concerned about the state of this draft quite frankly. I'm optimistic that you can dig in an make this a useful entry, but it will take some serious thinking about what you want to do with your subject. The key is issue to address is clarity and organization. You definitely need a lead section, and then you need to ask yourself how you want the rest of the entry to be organized. As it is you begin with a statement about Iconoclasm, which almost suggests that you don't think there are pre-Iconoclastic manuscripts. It seems like based on what you have you're probably closer to organizing the entry based on subject matter rather than chronology, so if you go that route think of a few appropriate sub-heads and start grouping the material that way. Another important aspect to address is adding links to other Wikipedia entries. I'd be happy to look at an intermediate version before the final deadline, just email me if you post a revision (I need a 48-hour window to look at it). AMcClanan (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)AMcClanan
Peer Review edit
Hello, I'm going to be peer-reviewing your article on Illuminated Manuscripts of the Byzantine Empire. I see you're making an article by scratch. This is surely difficult, especially for someone who has little experience in Wiki editing (if you're anything like me). I think you did a great job with the amount of content you presented on the subject! I learned a lot from reading this, but there are a few things that could be done to fit the structure and register of a Wiki article.
The first thing I noticed was the lack of a 'lead' section. Usually this will be the 'hook' or gist of the article you're presenting that will summarize these manuscripts, and comes before the content section and body of the article. Another thing to consider is the use words that ascribe value to something such as 'important subject throughout Byzantine art' and Easter being an 'important day of worship within the Christian faith. It's important to remember if something like that is seen in an article, usually it is paraphrasing a scholar or accepted opinion by some person/work, or is something that may not be super relevant to the article discussed. The Easter explanation could be omitted, and replaced with a link to the Easter Wiki to be more succinct, unless you find it relevant to discussing these manuscripts.
One thing that could benefit the structure of the article could be the inclusion of a content section with distinct sections. For example, as your writing is set up now, you could have something like
1. Types of manuscripts
Chronologies
Illuminated prophet books
2. The Chronicle of John Skylitzes of Madrid
3. Manuscript patronage
That's just a simple example, but could be helpful in representing the common Wiki structure.
Anyways, I think you did a great job with this article, and I hope none of my advice comes across as harsh. I wish you luck during your revision period, I'm sure you'll continue creating something great.
-Cameron Gendreau
Essay/tone edit
Hi - I noticed that this article seems to have a heavy essay tone in areas, so this needs some editing to help deal with that. It also needs a proper lead, as was pointed out by another student. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)