User:Kelleyschiedler/SOB X RBE/Jstnwoo Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Kelleyschiedler
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kelleyschiedler/SOB X RBE
Lead[edit]
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? No
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise
Lead evaluation[edit]
I think your lead does is maybe a little bit too concise, maybe one or two more sentences introducing the group members could be beneficial.
Content[edit]
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? No
Content evaluation[edit]
Good job updating the content of the page, especially stating that Lul G is not an active member anymore due to his murder charges. I also like that you added bibliographies for each member of the group.
Tone and Balance[edit]
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
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
I think your article maintains a very neutral tone, making sure not to use certain words that give praise or talk down on the group.
Sources and References[edit]
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? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Good job on adding quite a few new sources/references. I like that you have sources from many different/reputatable news outlets like Billboard and Youtube interviews of the group.
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
Organization evaluation[edit]
I think the content is organized very well, content doesn't seem spread too thin or clustered and looks very presentable.
Images and Media[edit]
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? Yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes
Images and media evaluation[edit]
I think the image used at the top is very good, I think more images could be added of the group or album covers would be a nice detail.
For New Articles Only[edit]
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
- Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
New Article Evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added? The biggest strength added to the article would be the bibliographies, they add a lot of new content to the page.
- How can the content added be improved? Maybe more content on their creative direction on their music.
Overall evaluation[edit]
Overall I think you added a lot of great content and sources. Keep trying to add more content and I think the page will become more solid than it already is, maybe try adding more information about their music or awards if any.