User talk:GarrettHartnell

Overall, the project appears to meet all the standard requirements needed; there is an introductory paragraph, a table of contents with several subcategories, text in paragraphs, consistent use of in-text citations, and a list of references written in a generally consistent citation format, alike what is to be expected of a standard Wikipedia page. The word count comes up to 1,063, which has been taken into great consideration, as it falls within the frame of 1,000 to 1,500 words, including the main text as well as the references.

The project title and some of the content seems intriguing, as I am positive that the curious viewer would want to look at rhythm from a physics point of view rather than just a musical point of view, hence the name of the title. However, there are no visual aids to refer to, as the page is just text only. Perhaps images (diagrams and photographs with detailed captions) supporting your points on the science of musical rhythm would help with the understanding the content, as although a significant amount of Wikipedia pages without images do exist, I found it difficult to absorb what was being written, especially since there were no visual aids to refer to, and you still have just over 400 words of space to use.

Despite the convincing title, unfortunately I had trouble comprehending the content of the text, as a lot of terms were not clearly defined, and some information did not seem relevant to the overall topic. First of all, what exactly did you mean by “the science of musical rhythm”? Do you mean “natural rhythm”, “synthetic rhythm” and so forth? There were other vague terms which I, as well as the average viewer would probably not understand in this context, such as “enjoyment”, “DAW, “grid”, “humanization”, “musical sounds and silences”, in which you might want to link such terms to another Wikipedia page that explains content you are trying to convey, while other terms sounded too informal and subjective, such as “totally”, “perfect” or “unnatural”. I suggest you avoid other terms such as “this is” or “for sake of clarity”, as they make an article lose its encyclopedic tone, therefore almost sounding more persuasive rather than informative. Furthermore, I recommend you to be consistent with your wording, as in your “rhythmic imperfections” paragraph, you mentioned “computer generated rhythmic patterns are perfect in timing, and in another you said “often sound unnatural, overly synthetic, and lack small deviations/errors in timings” to make sure you are on the same page. Whilst the spelling and grammar seemed consistent in that standard Canadian spelling was being used, there were several minor spelling and grammar errors too, which you may want to double-check.

Finally, although the content seemed appealing, I also did not understand the point of the subcategories (the methods, mathematical reasoning nor syncopation), as I thought that you were meant to be investigating the science behind musical rhythm, hence you may also want to refine your title and define in the introductory paragraph specifically what you are trying to research, as while the contents look decent for a Wikipedia page, the content looked jumbled as they were not mentioned in the introductory paragraph, therefore I got lost at many points. Though I understand that you were trying to incorporate some physics content, I could not get the messages you were trying to convey clearly.