User:ConradRobin/Ball culture/TaylorC24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) ConradRobin - Ball Culture wikipedia page
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ball culture

Lead
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 first sentence does a great job describing the articles topic, my only complaint would be that the different names for ball culture make it a little confusing/ long winded. So maybe dedicating a sentence to the difference ways to describe a ball or ball culture would be better. There are some sections that are not mentioned in the Lead but they are the less developed sections. The Lead at some points becomes long winded and not concise at times, but it's nothing too major.

Content
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 seems relevant and up to date. There are some parts that don't seem necessary because there doesn't seem to be that much information of the specific topic (Philadelphia and Atlanta locations of ball culture). Also, the section listing the prominent House names is very long winded and should either be shortened or put into a different format where its easier to read.

Tone and Balance
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 seems neutral. There are certain sections that are very short and have very little information compared to others. (Important Houses) is basically just a list of houses without any information. The section of prominent cities in ball culture has very little information for some cities, and some media mentioned in the media section has little to no information about them while others have a lot.

Sources and References
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 links I checked worked, a lot of the sources seem current and thorough (granted I didn't check all of them). There are some that dont seem extremely reputable but they are only cited as a source for the Houses and who they were founded by.

Organization
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 comes off as rambling at certain points and scattered. Some of the paragraphs are not broken up well and need a read through. Some points are just mentioned once in the middle of another point and never brought up again. Some points dont have enough information to warrant them even being included, so I would go through and decide if they are necessary or if there is more information about the topic to add.

Images and Media
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
There are two pictures added to the page, they are laid out in an appealing way. I wish the pictures better captures the scene at a ball or the extravagant outfits the contestants would wear, or maybe even a group picture of a House.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This doesnt seem to be a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation
I couldnt find any content that was added by the user so I just reviewed what I saw in the existing article. I also dont know how to use the page very well yet so maybe I just couldn't find the content added.