User:Giannamadden/User:Giannamadden/South African Folk Music and AIDS/Sruvs Peer Review

General info
Giannamadden
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Giannamadden/South African Folk Music and AIDS

Lead

 * This is a new article
 * The lead contains an introductory sentence that is clear about the content that lies ahead, however, there is a heavy presence of bias in the lead and beyond
 * It does include a relatively comprehensive explanation of what comes ahead, but there is a lot of fluff and assertion that is not required to be in the lead.
 * The lead only refers to things related to the article, however, it has a lot of opinionated statements that really don't have a place in Wikipedia. I'd recommend trying to weed these statements out.
 * The lead is overly detailed and fluffed with information that is irrelevant to the information aspect of the article. It begins to feel more like the introduction of an argumentative essay rather than the lead to a wikipedia article.

Content

 * The content added is extremely relevant to the topic and very well selected.
 * The content is up-to-date within the scope of the article, all having been published around the time of this prevalence.
 * There is not content that doesn't belong, but there is definitely room for more about folk music in general.
 * The article does address an equity gap directly in its references to South African underprivileged individuals (Women, Low Income). This issue seems to be directly related to an equity gap itself.

Tone and Balance

 * The content is not neutral - this needs severe revision. Throughout each heading (and subheading) the claims that follow are argumentative and driven by opinion. These statements need to be objective. i.e. "South African folk music for the longest time can been seen as a powerful tool that has allowed many people who've felt excluded by society to feel once again included." The word powerful imbues your emotion into this piece.
 * The claim above is heavily suggestive and critical of South African practices contributing to the AIDS epidemic. It can be hard to avoid biases in situations where only side can be perceived as clearly wrong, but I'd advise against including these biased phrases.
 * All viewpoints seem to be adequately represented, except for a counter, perhaps? Somebody who disagrees with folk music's impact on the situation.
 * It does become persuasive because of the way it is written. Be very careful about continuously asserting the points that you personally align with.

Sources and References

 * The content is all reliable - however it strongly relies on the first source that you've included. I'd definitely invite you to do more research and find other outlets that could also be strong.
 * The content is reflective of what the sources say.
 * The sources are partially thorough - but I think more research it required to made comprehensive points about the following information. There needs to be more diversity of viewpoint and evidence.
 * The sources are current and related to the period in which they were written.
 * There is a diverse presence in the articles, however, more research would allow me to make a better judgment of the diversity of author. All together, this is a first draft and it feels to early for me to decide whether the information is provided by diverse voices.
 * These are strong sources and there is a difficulty finding more. I'd advise you to keep looking, but its looking splendid so far.
 * The links do not work - check that out and see if they can be fixed.

Organization

 * The content is well-written and easy to grasp. It feels extremely coherent in its composition.
 * There are a great deal of grammatical errors. I ran it through Grammarly myself to check and came out with 89 low-concern (essentially basic grammar) suggestions. No big deal! Just comb it over and weed them out.
 * I think you have a very compelling organization of topic - thus I would not advise you to change it! I think the content may need some work, but the article is very aesthetically pleasing.

Images and Media

 * There are no images to review.

New Article

 * This article is meeting the notability requirements, but, as aforementioned, please work toward including more sources so you aren't forced to rely so heavily on the five.
 * The list of sources could be more exhaustive to broaden and expand upon the information that is already present
 * The article does follow the pattern of other articles, which I appreciate as it makes it a much easier read overall.
 * It does link to other articles, however, try to only link the first time that something comes up! That way it doesn't feel so bogged down by repetitive linking.