User:Emil.mathai/Musical hallucinations/Emilystlcopedit 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? (Emil.mathai)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Musical hallucinations

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Lead evaluation
Really good lead, its a brief but good background to the rest of the article. Doesn't spend too much time discussing things that are discussed later in the article, but lets you know what the topic is about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not that I could tell.

Content evaluation
All of the content added seems to be accurate and adds value to the topic. I can't really tell if it addresses any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but the information looks to be correct, and I have no red flags.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The neutral tone in this article was good because with a topic like drugs or alcohol I think it can be hard to stay neutral and not show a bias, but I think this article did a good job of presenting the data neutrally.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? mostly
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no

Sources and references evaluation
The links don't work and I don't think they were cited correctly using the wiki citation, but there are a good number of sources and when googled they appear to be accurate and good sources to use.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
Good clear organization, easy to read, and can easily find the subtopic if you only wanted to read part of it.

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


 * 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
N/A

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
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? really good neutral voice, and good addition to data and subtopics
 * How can the content added be improved? bibliography

Overall evaluation
I like this article and thought the additions were good and well thought out. The use of a neutral tone was present throughout the whole article. The sources look to be legitimate, with some problems citing.