User:Flickjo/Cleo Davis/BaiJoLogan 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) Flickjo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Cleo Davis

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, the first sentence is short and straightforward, leaving the reader with no question as to what they are looking at.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It doesn't go into detail about what will be discussed but I think it gives a little bit of an idea.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Because only part of the article is there, I cannot be sure. But I am assuming the answer is no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is super straight to the point and give a good overview of the topic.

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? I can only see about a sentence or two of what is being added to the article, but what I see is good. I'm sure there is more to come.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Looks fine to me.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is all fact based, so as of now there is really no opinion added.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I see that there is a reference, however, that reference needs to be tied to a sentence.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? As current as it can be! I feel like bluegrass topics are hard to find in sources that are only a few years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I feel like you'll need some more sources to get this one.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links are good!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The last sentence about his guitar being sat on.. I feel like there needs to be a little bit added about his first guitar and then the guitar he bought afterwards.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content is well organized!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, I don't really think you need pictures unless you just want them.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I feel that what you've added is great! No, but neither is mine. This is a more difficult project so I understand it not being completely finished or only sections that will be added to the article later.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Everything you have added is really simple and to the point. Readers looking for facts will appreciate that aspect. It makes for an easy read.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just add more to it. What you have is great, you just need more content.