User:Alisa.coffey/Medieval Harp/Alinde123 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) Alisa.coffey
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alisa.coffey/Medieval Harp

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It is a brand new article, so everything in this is new content
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it concisely explains that the terminology of "medieval harp" refers to European harps in the Middle Ages.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.  There is mention of the construction of the harp, where the medieval harp was used, and what the medieval harp developed into.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It seems that the lead only contains information that appears all the way through the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's only 5 sentences long, so I'd say it's concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All of the information in this article about the medieval harp pertains to the medieval harp, so yes, it is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, this is a brand new article.  Granted, the sources cited are somewhat dated, but it is current.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't know enough about medieval harp to say if whether or not there is content that is missing or doesn't belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Alisa mentioned in her presentation that the Harp Wikipedia article does not mention enough information about the medieval harp other than the use of Celtic harp, so her article is representing an unrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Most of the information in the article is objective information.  That makes it pretty difficult to put a slant on it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not necessarily.  Again, this article is mostly about surviving evidence of the medieval harp in reconstructions and literature about the harp, so Alisa seems to be presenting that material in a very accessible fashion that is unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't know enough about medieval harp to say whether or not there is something about this that is under-/overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Alisa doesn't make any strong arguments. She is just presenting facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There's a couple of paragraphs in the History and Geography section and the Development section that are not cited, but they may just come from the source in that section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I have no clue what literature there is on the harp, but there's probably more that could be used in this article.  She likely has more that she hasn't delved into yet.
 * Are the sources current? Two of her sources are 20 years old and one is 70 years old.  Again, I have no clue what literature about the harp there is, but I would guess there may be more recent scholarship than what she has on this draft.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? From what I understand, the authors of her sources are all harpists and harp scholars and two of them are women, so the scholarship represented in this article at the moment is primarily from female authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yeah, man.  Sure.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, Alisa has great prose.  It is very clear to read her writing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope, seems pretty good to me.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the added content is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image of a Scottish harp from 1500.  It is likely one of the few images available
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the caption descriees what the image is.  I'd say it does a pretty good job.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Lol idk
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, it is done at the top of the article next to the lead.  I'd say it's visually appealing.

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, there are three secondary sources on the topic.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? They are all focused on the harp in general and that is in fact what Alisa's article is about.  I'd say her sources could go more in depth, but hey, what do I know?  I don't know much about harp literature.  For all I know, these could be the only three things written about the harp.
 * 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, there are section headings which I have seen in 90% of Wikipedia articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Surpisingly, the article isn't linked to the Harp article.  I would suggest she at least do that.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, Alisa has improved the article of Medieval Harp by creating the article on Medieval Harp.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It has a very strong prose and very clear organization.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think this article could be improved with more scholarship that could be used as sources and some more links to other articles.