User:Alinde123/Johannes de Grocheio/Lucy920 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Alinde123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alinde123/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not really, he did not change that much. He cut some paragraphs in the lead and move them to the body.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It includes basic information that further illustrate in the following paragraphs.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise enough.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content explains the topic very well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the content is complete.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I think this article still addresses the old topic regarding “threefold division of music” which has been mostly discussed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It is neutral overall. But Wikipedia mentions that we should avoid gap in sourcing by saying “some people say” or “many scholar mainly focus on.....others scholar....” It seems you’d better refer to specific scholars.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the last section, you mention he describes the use of ALL of the chant in the Mass. It makes me wonder if he could cover ALL of the chant.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Because two other categories have not yet fleshed out. It now feels that Musica vulgaris is kind of overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not address another position that “Grocheio's discussion of music theory and new techniques of that time such as mensural notation and musica ficta.”

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I think so. The author and the title look quite academic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It seems his biography is supported by fewer sources and too short. I’m wondering if you can find more sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are all up-to-date within 30 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think so. THe authors are diverse and they do not repeat throughout the articles. Quote 1 (Christopher Page) appears more often than other books or articles. More sources you leave in the end are supposed to be included in the following paragraphs.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There is no links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It needs to revise and polish, but it looks clear to me. Some sentences link with three “and.” Other sentences are a little bit too long.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The word usage can be more varied.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the structure is quite clear.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no image.
 * Are images well-captioned? I suggest you can add more images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I Hope so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The previous image is interesting.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? It includes many good secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are two references on “Grocheio cited a song that featured a rhyme scheme similar to the rondeau.” It is a little bit confusing.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? It does include organized patterns, which features headings, editions, references, and manuscript.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It links to many articles such as Martins, Office, motet, organum, and hocket.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It adds details, specifically content regarding his threefold division of music. But it still needs to be fleshed out and completed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? Keep expanding section of Musica mensurabilis and Musica ecclesiastica. It seems that his division is derived from the conflict with Boethius’ division. The debate between the two approach is supposed to present in the next paragraphs.