User:Diomarys25/Music festival/Gustavo.lopez7 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? (Diomarys25)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Diomarys25/Music festival

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 Lead sentence explains other facts that she wants to improve, not the ones explained in the article. We can say that the Lead of what Diomarys had written in her sandbox is an important addition to the article, and on her Lead, we can see a brief description of what she wants to improve in the article. To conclude I must say that the Lead's concise.

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 added is relevant, it gives facts about things that happen when you attend a Music Festival which is the topic that in this case, Diomarys have been talking about scientific facts and benefits that attending a music festival would have on a person. All the information she used to develop this article had bibliographies that had been updated in the last 10 years or under. All the content in the sandbox belongs to the main topic, but some things would improve better the article like not just scientific facts, and more information about economics and others. Also, all the information provided is neutral, there's no equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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:

 * All the information provided is neutral, and all the different viewpoints are well explained and there are not underrepresented or overrepresented. Also, it just provides facts from reliable sources.

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:

 * All the sources of information are reliable. When we check and read the sources we can say that it´s reliable and that it works. Also, all the sources are current, not more than 10 years. The links that have been used in this article are working.

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:

 * All the content added is well-written, it´s concise, clear, and also easy to read. In the reading that I make, in the article, I couldn´t find grammatical errors. All information Diomarys had added is not divided into sections because she only has talked about one specific topic.

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:

 * All the information added will improve the article. It´s relevant, also very reliable, and it has good sources. This information, a little bit longer will improve the article a lot.