User:Kej9149/Clausula (music)/Jessmhill 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? Kej9149
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kej9149/clausula(music)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has - the lead is much clearer now and gives a basic understanding of what clausula is.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence is very clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does. I think that there could be more information added about what scholarly debate there has been over Clausulae, that sentence seemed a little out of place in the lead compared to the rest of the information being presented.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything discussed in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the information added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All the content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't see any content missing - this is a very thorough explanation of what a clausula is!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all the content is neutral in this article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is no biased opinions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no under represented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it doesn't try to persuade the reader of an opinion, it stays completely neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, everything is backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough and reflect current information.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current on the subject.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources don't have a diverse spectrum of authors, many of the sources are by the same author.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is clear and concise. I think some more information could be added to the section discussing rhythmic modes and how it relates to clausula.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - I like the two sections that you broke the content down into, I think it helps make easier to understand the development of clausula.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No media was added.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think what you've added makes this article much more clear than what was previously listed in this article. You clearly define clausula, and add relevant information that is useful to helping the readers understand what it is.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I really like how you've broken down the sections it makes it easier to understand the content.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think it can continue to improve by adding more details to each section, but this is a great first draft with good information!