User:Madelynbrouwer/Psychology of music preference/MikaylaS2000 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? Madelynbrouwer and sami.kasting
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Psychology of music preference
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation: The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added, however, I don't really feel that it is necessary since they just added on to and took away from sections that already existed. The lead includes an introductory sentence as well as it describes the article's topic quite concisely. It also includes the main sections, though it doesn't really describe them. The lead does not include information that is not in the article. I think that the lead is concise; it's short and to the point.
[edit]Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation: The content that has been added is relevant to the topic and is quite recent. I don't think that there is anything that is currently there that should be taken out, and I also don't think that anything is necessarily missing. This topic does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. This article mentions differences between males and females and their perceptions on what types of music sound good, so maybe one could argue that women have been historically underrepresented, but I don't see an issue with it within this article.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation: The content added is neutral and doesn't consist of any bias toward a particular position. There aren't any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented, as this is a pretty neutral, straightforward topic. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: The new content is backed by a reliable source of information. I think that the sources reflect a decent amount of literature available, however, I think that some more journal articles could make the article better, as opposed to more websites. The sources are are fairly current, and I think that their is a good amount of diversity among the authors (some of the sources even have many authors). The links seem to all work fine.
[edit]Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation: The content added is well-written and is easy to read. It does not contain any spelling or grammatical errors. I think that the content was well organized and I appreciate that they bolded the new material that they added and that they put the heading above the material too so that I could easily find where it came from in the 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?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation: N/A
[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?
- 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: 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?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?