User:Gacuna16/Indo-Caribbean music/Saabobak 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) Gacuna16
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gacuna16/Indo-Caribbean_music/Bibliography?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography

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? It sounds like a sentence without background information on what is about to be written.
 * 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? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A little bit more detail will make it better

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? Add a little more research info, get deeper.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Mostly, recheck the last paragraph first sentence. and the second last paragraph.
 * 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? Can't view the resources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? N/A
 * Are the sources current? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? N/A

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, a little passive in some sentences
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A couple but not an overwhelming amount
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images yet
 * 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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think with a little more it could be.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is general and doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.
 * How can the content added be improved? Don't describe the beauty of Indo-Caribbean music; describe what it is. Look for more things to add.

Overall evaluation
Be less passive and research more because I think you can find way more. I like how it didn't persuade and was mostly neutral. However, there were points that was sounded like the author was infatuated, but it is supposed to remain neutral. Add citations. Other than that, good job so far!