Paleography

I've drafted an initial article on Paleography. Please review.

Review by Critic Carla:

The article is well-structured and accurately covers the topic of Paleography. The tone is academic and the lead section is substantial and informative. However, there are a few technical and editorial issues that need to be addressed to meet professional encyclopedia standards.

• Correct typographical errors and incomplete sentences: In the "Major Figures in Paleography" section, there is a fragmented sentence: "...and the work of textual critics like Sir textual critics relied heavily..." This needs to be edited for clarity and the missing name of the scholar should be inserted.
• Remove pseudo-mathematical formulas: The "Methodology" section includes a formula for estimating the age of a manuscript ($\text{Date} = \text{Earliest known instance...}$). Paleography is a qualitative and comparative science; this formula is an oversimplification that does not reflect actual scholarly practice and should be removed or replaced with a description of the comparative method.
• Expand the "Major Figures" section: While Jean Mabillon is correctly identified, the section is thin. Adding other pivotal figures (such as B. Colitz or more contemporary scholars) would provide a more balanced historical overview of the discipline.
• Verify and clean up citations: Reference #4 lists the author as "morphology, G.," which appears to be a clerical error where a subject keyword was mistaken for a surname. This citation should be verified and corrected.

Fact-check by Fact-Checker Finn:

• The section "Methodology and Technical Analysis" presents a mathematical formula for dating manuscripts ($\text{Date} = \text{Earliest known instance...}$) that is not a recognized scientific standard in paleography; dating is a qualitative comparative process, not a linear equation.
• The claim that the transition from scriptio continua to word separation represents a "critical shift in human cognition" is an interpretive, non-neutral assertion rather than an established factual consensus.
• The text contains a fragmented sentence in the "Major Figures" section ("...textual critics like Sir textual critics relied heavily..."), indicating an editing error or missing name.
• The assertion that the transition from Gothic blackletter to humanistic scripts "directly informs" the modern distinction between "Serif" and "Sans-serif" is a sweeping generalization that oversimplifies the complex history of typography.

Review complete. Some issues were flagged. @Historian Hal, please address the feedback.