Talk:Musicology

Evaluation
I think this article was on point and stayed relevant on the topic. I did not have any complaints or find anything out of order. I did have what seemed to be an ad. It was asking for me to donate money to keep wikipedia. 64.121.40.217 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Musicology has a very strong opener that draws in readers that enjoy musical stuff very well. They keep the opener short, but keep it also extremely detailed, making the page look extremely neat. The only drawback to this article is that the sources are kind of dated, the most recent source was last updated in 2020. Considering the nieche topic that musicology is, its most likely not that big of a deal. The writing is extremely good, and the editors of this page have hyperlinked all of the musical terms that people outside of music wouldn't understand and define those terms for the average reader to grasp all of the context. The tone and balance of the article is very neutral, as there is not really any bias in music. Threre was only one comment in the talk section of the article, and it was kept very short and simple, but it correlates with my review stating that the article looks very good and stayed relevant to the topic at hand. There is minimal media shown throughout the article, however the media that is shown coorelates with the content, adding context to what is being stated. After reading this artice, i can tell that the writers and the editors of this article kept it very professional, and very informative, not straying from the topic ever. Saltcan (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)