Peer Review Notes

Similar to what Branden has previously mentioned, this is a great wiki page with strong explanations of the introduction, pictures, and the musical properties of the instrument. Some small points I just wanted to add is that the "Intro" section does not need to have a heading and the text of the intro paragraph can just flow right from the title heading. Also, the historical and etymological section is very fascinating, but I wonder if you can rework it into the introduction paragraph as it is not a main focus paragraph but rather provides accessory information, as the main point of exploration for this project is the physical and musical properties of an instrument. There are also multiple instances of parentheses which I suggest should be used sparingly. For example, in the last paragraph, you indicate an approximate dB measurement followed by "(approximately)", however you could find a way to restate this without the use of parentheses.

Finally, there are some minor edits I would suggest. In the etymological section, the sentence "In the 17th century, the french name for the instrument was 'flute douce' or simply "flute."" incorporates single apostrophe quotation marks and double apostrophe quotation marks. I would recommend sticking to one for consistency's sake, perhaps the double apostrophe which is typical of Canadian and American spelling conventions. Also the first sentence of the "playing the recorder paragraph" explains how to play the recorder using the imperative clause: "hold it with both hands." I would suggest restating this as a statement, for example "a recorder is played with both hands held on to it." This is definitely a strong piece of work and I am looking forward to the finished product. Cheers.