User:Cepropst/Vocal jazz/Maiab3 Peer Review

General info
- Cepropst
 * 1. Whose work are you reviewing?


 * 2. Link to draft you're reviewing
 * - LINK HERE
 * 3. Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * - LINK HERE
 * - LINK HERE

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Lead

- The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. I appreciate how she removed the fluff from the original article, and stuck to a succinct definition of what vocal jazz is/was-- including an overview of what the rest of the article would entail.

- The introductory sentence was kept the same, which I found fitting.

- Some of the content was briefly mentioned, but we were not given a huge amount of info (I only saw this with the topic of 'New Orleans jazz').


 * Content

- The content was excellent, as it was informative and neutral.

- I found it interesting that the history of jazz ended in the 1950s, and I would have appreciated to learn more about how it evolved into modern day time.

- The article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps, and does a great job at mentioning the topics related to historically underrepresented populations.


 * Tone and Balance

- The content added was neutral, and I liked how she removed notable singers from the lead and created an entirely new subsection for this individuals. The original article had a feeling of favoritism with specific singers.

- There is no persuasion, under/overrepresentation or bias that is apparent within the article.


 * Sources and References

- There is a good variety of sources from reputable websites and literature from a diverse array of authors, with the content accurately reflecting what is presented in said sources.

- I will say that some of the articles are out of date (from 1997-2015), and it may be helpful to have more current ones cited.

- All of the links work!


 * Organization

- All of the content is well-written, and I really enjoyed learning more about vocal jazz.

- Mentioned earlier, but I appreciated how the notable singers were moved into a new subsection instead of in the lead.

- No grammatical errors.


 * Images and Media

- N/A (no images or media within the article).


 * Overall Impressions

- Great job, I really liked reading the article and felt that it was a strong start!

- The only major thing to improve would be adding more information, but that will come when the time is right. Thank you for sharing with us!