User:Jachar520/Pope Sylvester II

It seems to me as though the article is rather well formatted and talks about a lot of the things throughout the life of Pope Sylvester II. But a lot of that information comes in just a paragraph a piece. I feel as though a lot of that information can be expanded upon.

Article body
There were substantial voids in knowledge in the specific fields that Gerbert was vastly knowledgeable in, (mathematics, astronomy, and music). This was peculiar, because those fields of knowledge and the previous spread of information regarding those fields was previously credited to Arabic and Greek scholars, which Gerbert was not known to have any connection with. He used this knowledge, and the practical applications he was known so well for, to construct complex globes and hollowed tubes to teach the paths of the planets and the stars throughout the sky. Gerbert also employed his knowledge of music and his speculations on music theory to craft a working organ that was thought to run off the power of steam. Gerbert's physical uses of his knowledge did not end there, he built a sundial that was beyond the understanding of many, he hollowed out tubes for his students to be more easily able to track the movements of the stars, as well as an abacus with one thousand counters and twenty-seven divisions.

Legends

Despite how well appreciated for his level of knowledge, teachings, and religious involvement, after Gerbert's death, he was known as someone who had let his lust for knowledge lead him away from god. Though the testimony of William of Malmesbury did much to discredit and defame Gerbert, there were many important intellectual distinctions that can be made from it. For example, the legend of Gerbert of Aurilac's talking head helped to describe the line between prohibited and permitted knowledge. Gerbert did work in music theory, mathematics, geometry, and several other fields accepted and taught in the quadrivium. All of the works he did related to these subjects were not brought into question and were accepted as well as appreciated. But works done outside of the accepted liberal arts was condemned, including things learned from bird's songs and flight patterns, as well as the necromancy he was rumored to have taken part in.

Legends

The claims made about Gerbert by William of Malmesbury, can be found in his book, "The chronicles of English Kings". They begin with describing how Gerbert traveled to Spain in order to further his knowledge of the lawful arts as described by the quadrivium, but rapidly shifts to explain how Gerbert quickly became more knowledgeable than anyone around him in the previously mentioned lawful arts. It was after this that Gerbert was said to have learned and partaken in the unlawful arts. Gerbert obtained this knowledge from a Saracen philosopher he stayed with, using money and promises as bartering materials in exchange for books of these dark arts to translate. Despite his efforts, there was one book that Gerbert was not able to coax from the philosopher. The William of Malmesbury then claims that Gerbert employed both wine, and the philosopher's daughter, to help steal the book from under the sleeping man's pillow.

Peer Review

After reading the peer review I was left, I agree with a lot of the things the reviewer left for me. My plan for creating this article, was to expand upon a lot of the academic and practical contributions to science that Gerbert provided society. I felt that the original article references these different topics, but does not go into a great amount of detail about those topics. But after reading the peer review and then reviewing my article, I found that I had not expanded a great amount and what I had was a slightly more detailed version of the original article. This means that I need to find more in-depth information about these topics. The reviewer said that my first sentence about the voids in knowledge was vague and it was hard to tell where the voids were. I don't entirely agree with this, but there is not any harm in phrasing the sentence differently so it is more clear. I did agree with the assessment the reviewer made on the sentence written about a his created sundial. I have already changed it. Up to the point when the reviewer had looked at my article, I had only drawn information from one article, which they commented on and I agree with their comment. I need to pull information from a larger number of sources. Overall I appreciate and generally agree with the feedback left by the reviewer and plan to use it in the ways listed above to improve my article.