User talk:Lucy920

Welcome!
Hello, Lucy920, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Syd McCoy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucy920/Conductus/SydneyDale_Peer_Review LINK to 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? Lucy920 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lucy920/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, though some spelling errors need to be fixed. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. Lead evaluation : The lead is concise with short, to-the-point statements that follow the order/outline of the article. Well done. Perhaps spell 'twelfth-century' instead of '12-century'. The last sentence 'it was decline..' was confusing. Check syntax and purpose of this statement. Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes- as much as is possible, it appears. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No...? and I am unsure how this article would be able to accomplish closing a gap on a population. However, the topic of medieval music itself may be seen as an underrepresented topic, and in that case, YES- this article is contributing well to said underrepresented topic. Content evaluation: Perhaps italicize the titles : the conductus Salve festa dies // the sequence Noster cetus iste letus

Spelling: in Arquitanian sources

Create tag for 'versus'// consider more tags for other musical terms used throughout the article, if they exist externally.

Some detail of the content could be narrowed down in to fewer sentences, with a better flow of phrasing to make for an easier read.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, well done. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation:

Overall, this article is very factual and written in an unbiased tone that is informative and straight to the point.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears so- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes, there is a nice wide range of dates, most current being 2 years old. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? It appears so- Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? In the realm of musicology, the representation is usually pretty bleak- this article is no exception. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation

The references are clear and organized well. The citations are done correctly and are utilized at appropriate times.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes- some I noted above. Another here : "Mensural notation has replaced the conductus ..." the present-past tense is used, when the word 'has' should just be omitted. OVERALL: the tense needs to be monitored. Be careful the wording, for example: " the copying of the 12th conductus can still be found in 1700"... this is confusing because 'can still be found' should be changed to "is found in a 1700 manuscript called... " and then should demonstrate an example of what was just stated. Another example of tense usage needing fixed: 'Common subjects of the song is about lives of the saints, feasts of the Lord, the Nativity, ...' --> could be --> Common subjects of the songs were: (then list a bullet point list) * Lives of saints * feasts of the lord,.... etc. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, this article has wonderful usage of headers and sub-headers. There may almost be too much detail for a wikipedia article. Organization evaluation

Organization is clear and precise- well done!

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, absolutely. What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are the VOLUME of content that has been added, including sources added. The DETAIL of description for new terms and functions of mentioned musical terminology. How can the content added be improved? Overall, this article has had a major facelift and for the better! I would suggest pairing things down to fewer words (sometimes it is hard to read due to the overwhelming amount of new information), watching the tense that is utilized throughout the article, and tagging musical terminology. Great work!

SydneyDale (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)