User:Uilleam1/Celtic harp/Mc tullochgorm Peer Review

Feedback for William:

Your lead doesn't really reflect what you're talking about, but you didn't edit the first bit of the article so I think that's alright.

The content you put in is quite relevant so I think you're good for that part.

The Newton Article may me a little old but there's still a lot of stuff in it that is relevent today.

Something I would look at is when you say: "Historical sources don't seem to mention" I would be careful putting the 'don't' in because it makes it look like we're just guessing which I don't think seems right for wikipedia. Maybe if you can't find any information on that particular thing you could just leave it out altogether.

Your content seems pretty neutral. I don't see any biases and you're not trying to persuade anybody.

You cited your information well, with scholarly sources so you're golden there.

The articles are just a little old c. 2008/9 maybe for future references it would be good to add one later than 2010.

A source possisble for this could be:

Dislocation and relocation: clarsach and live electronics MacDonald, Alistair The Scottish journal of performance, 2014, Vol.2 (1), p.11-28
I can't exactly click the link to take me to a university library access page to view the articles. I'd have to cope and paste them in and search for them.

The content you've added is pretty easy to read, however you do have one little spelling error on your edit. You wrote "exparements". Did you mean to write "experiments"?

You could add subheadings, like materials used, or how the harp was played but I think you did a good job as is.

I think you were really brave to edit as much as you did. You definitely followed the instructions that told you to be bold!

I think just a few minor edits to you edit would make it even better but you did great overall.

I actually ended up retyping this because at first I got locked out and lost all my progress lol!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)