Peer Review

Peer Review

Hey, I found this to be a very interesting topic, and since I know almost nothing about synthesizers, it was also very informative. I think that for the most part it was written very well, except for a couple of lines where you switch over to persuasive/subjective instead of objective writing. For example the line "The infinite qualities of a modular synthesizer are what make its composition so unique, dynamic, and infinitely possible, depending on the preference of the player", has a lot of extra fat to it that isn't very helpful. All this sentence is telling us is that it creates a unique and customizable sound, so all the descriptors are sort of getting in the way. Other than that I thought the content was great!

The biggest thing for me was the lack of sources and the formatting of the page (which I'm sure you intend to work further on). So make sure you cite your sources, I would say that's pretty important. An awesome thing I learned from looking into the source code from the example page is a way to format your page into different categories and sub categories. For example, you have all of your subcategories labeled as 2a, 2b, 2c (etc.), but if you place '====' on either side of your title you can actually have them automatically create a subcategory! So look into the source code and you can find some other ways to make your page easier to navigate, like adding subcategories, a reference list, and a table of contents.

SheaOracheski (talk)22:37, 21 March 2017

Hey, thank you for your feedback. I found it very helpful and constructive.

To be honest I found your page to be quite informative and thorough. Your main paragraphs are all essential in order for the reader to understand the harmonium, and they are also cohesive. You do a great job of introducing the harmonium, how it works, as well as how one can operate it in a way that is counter intuitive to its initial model (ie. harmonium bending), as well as discussing the problems with it. There seem to be no grammatical or spelling errors either. Your use of references and implantation of them throughout your wiki page is seamless, consistent, and well tuned. There are two recommendations that I am going to suggest to you that I think will allow your page to be a bit more concise and thorough. If possible, when you go into detail about pitch bending and start discussing the three variant ways of doing so (varying air pressure, partial pallet opening, and decreasing reed chamber volume), I would suggest, if possible, for you to include photos of how these different models work. The reason being that procedures are usually better comprehended when visually shown/demonstrated. Is there a way for you to draw an image of how the air moves through the valves? Again, this isn't crucial, but I think it would add some bulk and clarity to understanding pitch bending. My second suggestion, would be to make your photos a little bit larger, if possible. They seem very detailed, and so their scale is a bit too small for the eye to register the information as thoroughly as one can.

I hope this brings you some clarity and insight. Over all though, great job!

AniseMakvandi (talk)22:22, 26 March 2017