Vocal registration edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how intelligible the article is to a lay person and other possible improvements.
Thanks, Nrswanson (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from User:GeeJo edit
Ok. In terms of intelligibility, it's fairly good. If your aim is simply to produce an article that people will find useful, with no major ambitions towards "climbing the ladder", you've succeeded. The following are mostly points which would help the article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and be promoted up to Good/Featured status farther down the line:
- Opening sentence needs to be reworked to include some of the information in the second. At the moment, it reads as the equivalent of "An automobile is a car.". Accurate, but not a very good summary of the article.
- Shift references to follow punctuation.
- "no one consensus or point of view.", I'd insert "dominant" or the like into the sentence, as there are certainly points of view.
- "chest register", "head register"/"chest voice", "head voice". Neither set needs to be bolded. The voices redirect to the registers, so there's no need to link them twice.
- You establish two sets of recognised registers in the "Number" section, but only include subsections for one of these two sets. If you are wedded to having subsections for each of the registers, perhaps summarise chest/head as well?
- The sections on each of the registers is a tad brief. I'd aim for another paragraph or two in each.
That said, good luck with the article! :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)