User:MusicAB/Psychoanalysis and music/Kylee.roush 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?
- MusicAB
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Not that I can see
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No, I think the first sentence now should be moved after a sentence that establishes what the article is about.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Not really, it could be more explicit in outlining what will be discussed
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Music therapy is only mentioned in one short sentence fragment so I would either eliminate that from the lead or add a better description.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I think that the lead is too concise and could use a few more explicit details on what exactly the article is going to cover.
Lead evaluation: I didn't see any added content by my peer but the original lead was kind of lackluster in terms of outlining the content of the article.[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- N/A
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- N/A
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I think there should be a better description on the aspect of music therapy
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Not that I can tell
Content evaluation: I can't find any added content but the original article gives an in-depth review of the history aspect of the topic but everything else is very concise.[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- N/A
- 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?
- N/A
Tone and balance evaluation: The original article seems very neutral.[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- N/A
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, there is an adequate number of sources.
- Are the sources current?
- None are within the last decade so when adding to things in the paragraph about the future make sure to add some more relevant citations
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Most are links from physical books
Sources and references evaluation: I didn't find any new content added so additional sources were not needed yet.[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- N/A
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- N/A
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- N/A
Organization evaluation: No new content but the original article[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Not really, there is a picture of one of the people being mentioned.
- 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: No added media but the original image simply provides a visual of the musicologist being described.[edit]
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?
- N/A
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- N/A
- 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?
- N/A
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- N/A
New Article Evaluation: N/A[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- N/A
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- N/A
- How can the content added be improved?
- N/A