User:Carino, Cz/Virtual pitch/DanBunting22 Peer Review

General info
(Carino, Cz)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Latest revision as of 08:35, 19 February 2024 :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missing_fundamental&oldid=1208872978:

Evaluate the drafted changes
This article tackles a tough more advanced musical and auditory concept that will require clear and concise information for the average reader. The lead section before Cez made edits was a convoluted and difficult to understand. The added revised content cuts out the unnecessary information and defines the missing fundamentals definition in a clear and concise way. It cuts out the extra words and provides a stronger level of clarity for the reader. The lead section with these changes is has the right amount of information and does not need further expansion. The expansion will fit much better in the explanation section where the content being relayed gets even more technical.

The content added is incredibly relevant to the topic. Using Ian Howell's dissertation and Robert Ladd's 2013 study as sources for the additions are good because they are relatively up to date pieces of research regarding psychoacoustics and the missing fundamental. The ideas in these studies add new an important pieces of information to the understanding of the topic. The one issue regarding the sourced material that might be that it is specifically referenced in the the article itself. it might be useful to just reference the content of the sources in the article and just cite them in the references. It also might be useful to expand upon the sources greater detail, in the explanation section.

Overall, the additions made to the article have helped update it and streamline it. I think that it would be helpful to make even more additions using more recent sources to back up the claims in the new sources that you already added. The additions are great and have a neutral un-biased tone.