User:Gracie568/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_training)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I am going to a concert this weekend and I was interested in seeing the importance of ear training for singers. It matters because singers need to make sure their pitch, rhythm and tone is good to match the songs they are singing or playing. It is also something that is being taught in music schools so its essential to know if you want to become a musician. My preliminary impression was that it was interesting and that it gave the information that was needed and also it was organized and clear to the topic that was being researched and discussed.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

First paragraph gave a clear and concise description of what the article was going to talk about, it gave wiki links for things like musicians, pitch, sight-reading, music schools, etc. which was helpful in clicking and getting a better understanding of what was being talked about. When going further into the article, it was separated by sections which makes it easier for me to understand what was being discussed. For example the sections were Functional Pitch Recognition, Interval Recognition, Chord Recognition, Rhythm Recognition, etc. The tone was very clear and neutral and overall gave a narrative and informational tone.There was no bias within the tone or as though the editor was saying their opinion.For example, in the Functional Pitch Recognition section, they mentioned several strength, but also several weaknesses which helped balance it out and give an overall understanding of Functional Pitch. Not only was it not biased, it was also very clear and concise. I was not confused or trying to figure out what the editor was saying because I already knew. The definitions were provided and it was also explained very clearly. There were no images within the article.There was a little issue with some citations I found. First when I opened the article there was a warning that says "This article gives general references, but lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations". When looking further I noticed that one paragraph had no citations whatsoever. It was under the rhythm recognition section and although there were references and the tone did not sound biased, it would've been better to cite some sources because it did make me a little skeptical. Another citation issue was that in the last paragraph of Modern training methods, the editor states, "For example, free and open source software under the GPL, such as GNU Solfege, often provides many features comparable with those of popular proprietary products" the problem with this is that no station was added which makes me wonder where the editor received that information from. Overall, the article was clear and concise, interesting, not too long and not too short and informative. These were the articles strengths, but I would improve the citations of this article because it did make me a little skeptical in certain areas. It even made me think about wether something was actually true because there were no citations. Overall, good article, but does need to improve citations.