User:Eric.collazo94/Binaural recording/Azg20 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)Eric.collazo94


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric.collazo94/Binaural_recording?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Binaural recording

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was updated to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead includes 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? The lead didn't include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead includes information that isn't in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead was concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some more neural content about binaural recording is missing and The content from the "DearVR MICRO" website doesn't belong there because that is an opinion not a fact.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added isn't neural.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is a claim in the article draft appears to be heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There was a viewpoint of VR MICRO plugins being a great way to save money for upcoming producers wanting to learn binaural recording techniques.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor for one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don't think the new content was backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I don't think that the sources were thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources seem to be current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think that the sources writtern by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) https://symposium.music.org/index.php/55/item/10863-creating-immersive-listening-experiences-with-binaural-recording-techniques.

https://soundgirls.org/recording-and-binaural-audio/

https://www.wnyc.org/story/127107-adventures-3d-sound-bach-and-binaural-recording/

http://openfile.org.uk/archive/dallas-simpson-binaural-recording/


 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added was well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content added didn't 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? The content added wasn't well-organized because it wasn't broken down in sections to talk about the major points of the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added improved the overall quality of the article because you added a new binaural recording headphone (VR micro plugins) to the "Binaural Recording Headphones" section in the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that you did a great job adding a possible new section for the original article talking about VR micro plugins. I believe that adding this information on the original article will be helpful for someone who doesn't know VR micro plugins as a binaural recording headphone.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added could be improved by working on the draft in sections to understand what section from the original article is being added by you. To try find more scholarly articles for the article draft so you can information from a neural viewpoint.