User talk:Lucy920/sandbox

Instructor Feedback (First Draft)
You've clearly put a lot of work into this draft - everything you need is on the page, and that's great. In general, I found your writing got denser and less clear as the article progressed. As you revise for the second draft, aim for both clarity and concision, and be sure to proofread!

Lead

 * "It was declined and replaced by the motet after the mid-13th century." Try not to frame the genre in an evolutionary or teleological way, i.e. rise and decline, as this detracts from the neutral point of view. To this end, you could simply delete the last sentence.

Origins of the Name

 * Delete "conductus" from the title
 * Please name "the ancient hymn." If it's also called Salva festa dies, indicate that, e.g. "in the ancient hymn of the same name, which ..."
 * Add references for the two sentences that reference hypotheses.

Preservation and Sources

 * "The conductus was the first musical genre with vast reportories in the history of medieval music." This is a big claim and not, I think, a defensible one. What about Gregorian chant? That was certainly a vast repertory.
 * Be consistent about how you cite MSS. I suggest not using RISM sigla (e.g. E-Mn 289), which are intended for musicologists.

Authorship

 * "It is not anonymous" is too broad a claim: many conducti are indeed anonymous.
 * Why is Phillip the Chancellor given more credit?
 * I would imagine the poem would have been written before the music. Is there reason to suppose otherwise?
 * "Common subjects of the POEM ARE the lives of the saints..."

Characteristics

 * "MUSICAL Characteristics"?
 * "Viewed as a genre by the medieval author." I'm not sure what you mean by this phrase. Which author? I'm also a bit wary of the term "vast." It makes the # of conductus seem immeasurable.
 * "Multiple-voice" instead of "more-voice"
 * The subheadings (e.g. number of voices) work well, but I think this section is a bit long for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Consider condensing each section.

Music and Notation

 * "The style of the conductus was usually rhythmic." Rhythmic isn't a style.
 * "Duscantus positio vulgar" - spell check!
 * Again, you're getting a bit too detailed and "into the weeds", particularly with the second paragraph. Consider condensing it and perhaps combining it with the first.

Performance

 * "Medieval performers sang the conductus as early as 1160." This seems oddly specific. How do we know?
 * "whimsical correspondence." I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but I doubt that "whimsical" captures it.

The Reception History of the Conductus

 * Delete "of the Conductus"
 * This section is somewhat confusing. In the lead you say that the conductus was replaced by the motet in the 13th century. But here you indicate that it was replaced after 1300.

General Comments on Writing

 * Put latin terms like "conducere" in italics.
 * Add hyperlinks for key terms such as sequence or hymn.
 * Try not to use nouns as adjectives in non-idiomatic ways. For instance: "The repertory of conductus" rather than "Conductus repertory."
 * Watch out for misspelling, e.g. "conducts." this is probably a function of autocorrect.
 * You're still missing some articles at key points. For instance, in general it's "the conductus" rather than "conductus."Bdbrand77 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback
You've added a lot of very important information here, e.g. the reference to the versus, the point that this is both a monophonic and polyphonic genre, and giving a sense of the size of the repertoire (it's big!). Moving forward, I encourage you to think more about the structure of the article and how to divide it into sections. For instance you might have one section entitled "Origins of Name." It's also unclear how you plan to integrate what you've written with the existing article. You don't want to simply replace the existing article with a new one! Like so much medieval music, you want to preserve an old element even while adding new ones.

I'm really interested to see how your revisions will develop. I can already see that the article will be much improved! Bdbrand77 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)