User:Helicopter331/Mozart Allegro in D Major/275betheteam Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Helicopter331 and Gongster826 ??? I'm not sure of Kevin's username.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Helicopter331/Mozart Allegro in D Major


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * They are writing a completely new page!

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The overall structure of the article seems thorough and each subheading seems relevant and notable enough to warrant its own section. Some sections however, such as the "Context" section under theories seem a little small and therefore blippy, so maybe it should be combined with the other theories or if there's more information you haven't found yet it could be expanded.

I think your best section is the "Form" section under Musical structure. The analysis here (if it's accurate which I am assuming it is) is detailed and uses neutral, descriptive language. One question I have is whether or not it is worth it to divide the musical structure section into an "overview" and a "form" category, because A) you don't necessarily have to say to the reader "this is an overview" and B) since there is only one subsection besides "overview" it may make sense to just have them both under one "musical structure" heading, that is unless you are adding more subheadings moving forward. Nonetheless this is only a minor, insignificant critique, because the content here is really solid!! Good work!!

Another question I have (because I am not completely sure of the answer) has to do with your citations. Sometimes your citations aren't immediately following information that is clearly from a source, but a later after more information from that source. I don't know if this is the way Wikipedia wants us to cite things. An example of what I am talking about is

I also think your lead section is strong. It is easy to always think that "more is better" but I love how concise and to the point this section is. I think you chose the most important information for the article to put at the front.

When you use the word "context" I am a little confused on the exact meaning of what you are saying. Historical context? I haven't studied music in a formal setting so maybe I am missing something here. I would recommend clarifying what you mean by this. Additionally, having both a "Background" and a "Theories- Context" section may be redundant. You mention in your background section that little is known about the context of the piece, which seems to directly connect to the nature of the theories about it. Also, if it is possible, try and expand upon the how the manuscript was confirmed to be Mozart's. This seems notable and interesting. When was it confirmed to be his? What came out of that confirmation? Who confirmed it? This process warrants investigation.

If you are at all interested (not required at all) consider using multimedia in your article. You could add an mp3 recording of the song, or a picture of the manuscript, or something completely different! Just a thought.

Overall, I think you guys are off to a really great and strong start! I learned a lot from reading your article and have a good understanding of the piece from reading the article. If you want to expand the article, I would say "Background" may be a place to look, but what you have now is very solid.