User:Ekcamara97/Trap music/LNeiswonger224 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)
 * I am reviewing Ekcamara97's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Trap music

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I do not think that my peer has added anything to the lead of the article yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I do think that the introductory sentence is concise and describes the articles topic. This is because, it starts with defining trap and on overview of where the music originated.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not describe the article's major sections. It focuses on trap artists and the overall genre. However, the major sections of the article include the characteristics, origins, expansion and influence/ cross-pollination.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The artists the lead mentions comes up in a later section of the article. As well as, the overall sound characteristics of trap music in general.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead seems concise. Information is provided that would help a reader understand what trap music is before reading the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * My peer did not seem to add content to the article yet. However, the content in the article is relevant and goes over the history of trap music and works its way into its expansion and influence over the years.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content of the article is up-to-date. The artists mentioned in the article seem fairly recent as well as the projects they have been working on.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think that there is content that doesn't belong. I think some content that should be added may be more of a focus on some of the individual famous trap artists.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * My peer has not added content to the article yet. However, I do think that the overall content of the article is written from a neutral standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I would not say that any of the claims are heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are viewpoints that are over-represented in the article. The article keeps on mentioning that trap is where people do drug deals, this puts an overall negative emphasis on trap music.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No content was added. But, the article seemed to be from a neutral standpoint and it does not try to sway people into thinking a certain way about the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No new content was added to the article. There is reliable secondary sources of information, but the article could use some more references. Also, some of the sentences in the article are not cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and provide information related to the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are a little bit outdated. Some of the sources date back to 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I clicked on did work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There was no content added by the user. The content of the article was easy to read and it was organized well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content of the article does not seem to have any spelling or grammatical mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content of the article is well-organized and starts with the beginnings of trap music and works its way down to its influence today.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images in the article help provide a visual for two of the famous trap artists.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are not well-captioned. They only say the name of the artist and the year. There is no mention of what event they were performing at.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images do seem to adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are laid out in an 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?
 * Content was not added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content was not added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content was not added.

Overall evaluation
The article needs more citations and references. Also, I think some topics are too over-represented in the article.