User:Adrifaye/Blind (SZA song)/Jessiej12 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Adrifaye

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Adrifaye/Blind (SZA song)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Blind (SZA song)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I think the lead is very nice and complete. This is a very short but concise introduction that gives the reader a general idea of what wikipedia is about. This introduction also summarizes the basic content covered by each section of wikipedia.
Good reference lists

Content

I think your index and content are both correct and necessary, but I would suggest that you adjust the size of "Composition" and "Background". You've written a lot of "Background" information, which makes me feel like the focus of this wikipedia article is a little bit off the "Blind" song itself. I think we can focus more on songwriting, and then introduce the production of the album and SZA's personal story in a relatively general way.
After reading your article, I referred to the wikipedia article of Taylor Swift's song, Shake It Off. I think you could borrow from that one and add a little bit more concept about the song. Of course, it's nice the way it is right now.

Tone and Balance

I think you did a good job on the tone and balance of the whole article! I didn't find anything overemphasized or too shallow. The whole thing looks very neutral. It is a good introductory article.

Sources and References

The sources cited in this article are really numerous! I didn't check every single article, but by looking at the title and the general content presented in the article, I think what you did very well was to find lots and lots of information to refine an idea. I think this is a place worth learning for me.
The sources cited are introductory and neutral. The quotes are mostly accurate and credible (such as statements from some music media and even the singer himself)

Organization

As I said above, more information may be needed to emphasize the main point of the article, namely the song itself. Also, if you feel that background is equally important, I think you can add some subheadings to separate each paragraph. For example, I read about SZA in the background, and I read a little bit about how the album was made. I think the whole article would have been better if you had added some subheadings to separate the two different types of information

Images and Media

I think you need more pictures, like the album cover or more pictures from SZA's show. The only picture of the article locates in a less prominent spot. I think the visual effect of the whole article would be better with more pictures!
Good source and no copyright concerns

Overall Impressions

I am a HUGE fan of SZA, so it is pretty excited for me to see someone doing an article about her new song. I think this is a good article, overall, with many concrete and detailed information, and good sources. I think it could be improved if you can dive deeper into the song itself. Although you have already found the story behind, maybe adding more information on the artistic value or social impact of the song. Good job ^^