User:Avaw13/California Roots Music and Arts Festival/EliseSembach 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)
 * @Avaw13
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Avaw13/California Roots Music and Arts Festival

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, reflects new content
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the intro sentence gives a concise summary of the music festival
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, could put a little more emphasis on what the goal of the article is
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No everything stated in the lead is also present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Short and concise, good job!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything added is relevant to California Roots Music Festival
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content seems to be updated to the highest extent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, from my evaluation the content seems to be good, and everything seems to belong

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, more or less the full article is neutral and the tone seems to be more informational than anything else
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, everything seems to be backed up with citations
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints seem equal
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, seeks more to inform rather than persuade

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, seems like there are 5 strong sources listed
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources appear to have available literature on the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources seem current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes 4/5 links have a working link that redirects me

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, information seems very clear, straightforward and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, not from what I see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, appears well organized and broken down clearly

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, no images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, there are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Does not apply as there are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * Yes after her edits and additions, the article seems to be more thorough and more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The history section and the festival organization section seems to add a lot to the article compared to the state it was in before, also all claims are backed up with sources which makes the article seem to have a lot of validity.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding a picture would make a large difference