User:Yanqin Li/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Dominant (music) - Wikipedia

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.)

First of all, I personally like music very much. I learned piano when I was young and then I learned ukulele by myself. For me, music is one of the indispensable pleasures in life. When I was a freshman at Rutgers, I chose to take a music theory course. The professor would teach us the basic knowledge of music and also let us work on arrangement. The more I found out, the knowledge of music theory is far less simple than I thought. If you just play the piano, you don’t need much knowledge. But I want to learn more about music, especially chords. It can help me learn how to sing harmonies to my friends when singing with them, and it can also make it easier for me to play the piano. I only need to know the main note of this tune, and then I can match it with a suitable chord. I don’t need to follow exactly what the score gives us. This is a very interesting and creative thing.

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.)

I think the beginning is relatively concise, and it clearly describes the topic of the article "dominant (music)". It includes a short description of the main part of the article, and does not contain information that is not related to the topic in the article. The beginning is also concise and detailed.

The content of the article is related to dominant chords, and the content is also up to date. I think there are missing or irrelevant content. The article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

The article is viewed from a neutral point of view, and there is no proposition that is seriously biased towards a particular position. There are no views that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The minority or marginality views are not accurately described. The article does not try to persuade the reader to be biased towards one position or away from another.

All facts in the article are supported by reliable sources of auxiliary information. The source of the information is thorough and the source is not up to date. The sources are written by various authors, and they do not include individuals who may be historically marginalized. The sources of information are very good, most of them are published books, and some are in Encyclopedia Britannica. The links are all work.

The article is concise and easy to read. First briefly explain the theoretical knowledge, and then provide examples, this method is good. There are no grammatical or spelling errors in the article. The article is well-organized, and a chord transition diagram is attached. This is very helpful for people who teach themselves music. The subtitles of the images are correct, and all images comply with Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are also arranged in an attractive way.

Most of the conversations on the discussion page are suggestions for the layout and layout of the page. The overall distribution is still possible, and the description is very concise. The advantage is that there are good pictures with text, which will be better understood. It’s just that I hope to have fewer professional vocabulary, because too many professional vocabulary will increase a lot of difficulty for beginners, so that I will give up reading this article in the middle. The completeness of the article is good. If possible, you can actually give a few more song examples to help readers understand.