User:SydneyDale/Magnus Liber/Chandlerhall2 Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Syd (Magnus Liber Organi)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SydneyDale/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
• 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? Yes; In the lead you mention Garlandia & Anon IV and their medieval descriptions of the Magus Liber. In the body, you only mention Anon IV.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think you got many of the important things: when, by whom, how it survives, and its significance. I feel like there are some missing pieces. What kind of music? Sacred or liturgical--for the Mass? Div. Off.? (It is only in the last paragraph of the entire article that you mention that this was music for the liturgy). You got style--organum, but how many voices? Is everything polyphony, or is there also some chant? Do you need the info abt Garlandia and Anon IV in the lead, or should that be relegated entirely to the body?

Lead evaluation:

Overall, the lead is solid. I lead explains very well that the Magus Liber should not be understood as a real book; instead, it is a repertory. Moreover, today, the repertory survives in 3 MSS and must be reconstructed through those MSS. I think those are the most important and confusing aspects of this, and you nailed it. See my responses to the above questions for further feedback, including things that you might consider adding.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Discussion of style was good. Consider using the phrase "a modern edition" or "a scholarly edition" instead of "modern times" when you discuss publications of music from the MLO. I think you need to expand more about the notation not being exact (the limits of mensural notation can be added to your disc. of the lack of barlines. Approx. how many pieces of the rep. survive (how large is the rep)? The connection btwn the last clause of the article (instruments) does not relate to the first half of the sentence (the chant line not being written by the organal part. Consider spitting it into two sentences: "During performance, the original chant melody was fit to the notated vox organalis. Even an instrument could have been used to represent the tenor line." I thought your discussion of the MSS was good. You focused on the repertory rather than the MSS. If someone wants more info about the MSS, then they should create a Wiki article on W1, W2, or F! I think overall you need to be more clear about the kind and function of the music. Introduce that this is liturgical music WAY earlier in the article. But what kind of liturgical music? Mass Ordinary? Proper? D.O.? What seasons/feasts? Are there saints that make this especially relevant to Paris? These are some of the things that I am considering in my own article. Also, is it possible to determine which pieces are earlier than others? How did the rep grow over time? Just some things to think about--I am not sure if all are entirely necessary for a Wiki article.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not to my knowledge.

Content evaluation

This is such a vast improvement over the published version of this article. Your version tackles most of the biggest questions that a person might have. See my responses to the questions above for more feedback.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No; I like that you focus on the MLO as a repertory rather than doing a deep dive of the three MSS.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

I think overall, your tone and balance are good. You treat the material fairly. I think you need to read the article out loud. I think word choice and sentence flow could be improved. There is SO MUCH INFO (YAY!!) that it needs to all be connected more smoothly otherwise the ideas may not seem related.

This is kind of wonky to me:

"The early music of Notre Dame cathedral represents a transitional time for Western culture. Coinciding with the architectural innovation that produced the structure of the Cathedral itself, from the beginning of its construction in 1163."

I think you need to state more clearly that at this time, the Notre Dame Cathedral was being reconstructed at this time. The "western culture" bit feels out of place and generic. Perhaps something akin to:

"In 1163, King XXX began an ambitious construction project: a new cathedral dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the new Gothic architectural style. The music of this new Notre Dame Cathedral was written to embody this same Gothic style: elaborate ornamentation designed to complement the architecture and resonate in the high ceilings and long naves of the immense space." If you want to mention a transition, I think you need to discuss the previous cathedral (St. Stephen, in a Romanesque style) and the previous music so that people have a point of reference.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? YES
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

This is great.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I started to address this in the "Tone and Balance" section. The content is great, but I think some ideas need to be connected more smoothly.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw, but sentence flow could be improved.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I like the organization. I know exactly where to go if I have a specific question.

Organization evaluation

The macro-organization is good. The material is so dense (which is fine), but I think your ideas could flow together more smoothly. Also, the "Styles and Genre" section is so large that it became difficult to navigate. Consider smaller paragraphs with clearer topic sentences (I do not mean that you should cut out content! I think nearly everything you have included is important).

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
• Are images well-captioned? I would suggest describing the images. What is the music on folio 8? What does the illumination from MS F depict?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? These seem to be WikiMedia images, so yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation

I thought these were fine. I think you should explain that the one image depicts Boethius' conception of music. Perhaps link Boethius to the way that learned ppl understood music in medieval society.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, this is like a breath of fresh air!
• What are the strengths of the content added? Content is mostly clear. I am not being misled or confused by the content (which I was before!).
• How can the content added be improved? Micro-organization could be improved (ie. sentence construction and flow, making sure that one idea leads logically to the next). I think the biggest thing was getting all your ideas out on paper, and you definitely succeeded on that front. Now it is time to address any small gaps and polish it up! Great job!

Overall evaluation

Your edits are coming along very well! There are a few small gaps, which I addressed above. I think the next step is to look at every piece of information and ask yourself "is there a more precise way I can say this in the same number of words (or fewer!)?" and "am I laying out the links between these two pieces of info?" I think precision and connections are the two biggest fish left to fry! I am so excited to see your published article!