User:BeatriceVelline/Russian traditional music/Jxs2643 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) BeatriceValline
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BeatriceVelline/Russian traditional music

Lead

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? Yes, the lead mentions the subsections that are elaborated on later in the article.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The only aspect of the lead that was not explicitly written about was the lyrical songs, but if these do not have any particular relevance to the article, then it is okay.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is clear and concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? All of the information included appears to be up-to-date while still elaborating on the importance of Russian traditional music during different historical periods.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article focuses on an area of Russian history, traditional music, that is often overlooked when studying the country's past.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral and does not overemphasize or downplay any side regarding Russian traditional music.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is nothing that seems biased toward any particular perspective or standpoint.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the viewpoints included all appear to be neutral and purely informative.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is all backed up by a reliable secondary source.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources appear to be thorough and they reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current? While some of the sources are older than others, they are all relatively current and pertain to the topic of Russian traditional music.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? While I am not sure as to whether or not the authors of the articles are historically marginalized individuals, the content of the articles themselves explore different aspects of Russian traditional music while overlapping on the basics, which are included in the article.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Some of the sources did not work for me personally, as they were accessed through a digital library and other means, but the majority of the sources were accessible.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is extremely well-written, as it is all clear, concise, and highly informative. It does exactly what Wikipedia articles aim to do.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were little to no grammatical errors visible in the article.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is very well-organized into sections and topics.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• No images have been included in my peer's article.

For New Articles Only

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? Yes, the article is supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject of Russian traditional music.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is not very extensive, but the content included is relevant, recent, and pertains to the topic, so a more extensive list may not be necessary.
• 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? Yes, the article includes section headings, titles, dates, and other organizational features that benefit the flow of the article.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article incorporates several other links that are accessible and informative.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article appears to be complete and thoroughly-covered. It would benefit from a bit more information, which will likely be added in the future, but overall the article is neutral, informative, and relevant to the topic of Russian traditional music.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content are that it is highly factual, concise, and to the point. In addition, the content is not biased, and it does not favor one aspect of the discussion of Russian traditional music over another.
• How can the content added be improved? The content may simply be improved by going into more depth in the future when approaching the final draft, but it is an excellent rough draft.