User:Ajla.halilovic/Musical anhedonia/Sami.kasting 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? sierra.sagucio
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Musical anhedonia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there has been no content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead that was already in the article does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead has major sections outlined.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead includes a whole scientific study that was performed and not located in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that the lead is overly detailed and contains some unnecessary content that can be moved to the body of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There has been no added content.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There has been no added content.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There has been no added content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article deals with the equity gaps, as it is short.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There has been no added content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There has been no added content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There has been no added content.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There has been no added content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There has been no added content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There has been no added content.
 * Are the sources current? There has been no added content and there is no information on the bibliography.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources already there do have a variety of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The existing links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content already there is concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, the content is not organized very well.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no photos.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no photos.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no photos.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no photos.

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?
 * 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?