User:Hypermole115/Covet (Band)/Patriciatrinidad19 Peer Review

General info
Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Hypermole115

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Hypermole115/Covet (Band)

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

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Hello! Your lead does a good job of discussing most of the details that you mention in the body of your article. Something I think you could add to your lead is a sentence on how many studio albums Covet has released and their success.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I think the first sentence does introduce the topic well because it mentions that Covet is a rock band and that it originated in San Jose, CA back in 2014.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? When I read your article, I thought that your lead did provide a good description of your article's main sections. But, something you could add to your lead is the band's music catalog. You should also consider writing a sentence that includes the names of the band members, rather than using a bullet-point list.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? For what I saw, your lead touches on most of the information you wrote in your article. One thing I saw in your lead but not mentioned in the article was Young's impressive guitar style. You could trying adding more of this information to your "Style and influences" section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Your lead is concise as it was written in a way that makes it understandable and clear for people to read. I also think that you weren't overly detailed, which is good because you provided us with just the right amount of information.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic. You talk about the band's different albums, some problems they faced along the way, and their musical abilities.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I read, you added that they have recently released a new album, which makes me think that this content is up-to-date. Maybe you can add information on whether this band has any upcoming tours, or talk about their current hit songs.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Something I felt was missing was how the band was formed. Maybe you can find an article that discusses how the band members met and why they wanted to start making music together.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, I don't think so.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, the content that was added was written in a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? To me, there are not any claims that are biased toward one particular side.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not think there are overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not think so. This article does a great job just presenting what this band is about and how they collaborate with one another.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I saw the section with all your references, but I didn't see any footnotes. I think you should go back and cite the information you wrote.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) I looked up the first source you used, and it looks like it your content in your article reflects the cited source. I think you should try to paraphrase the sources more and write the information into your own words.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think your sources are thorough because they talk about Covet. I think you should look for more sources so that it builds your article's notability. Also, with more sources you can compare the information you want to put in your article, making it easier to paraphrase.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current. They range from 2016 to present time.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I noticed that every author is different, which is good so that you have many perspectives. I don't think there are historically marginalized 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.) For a topic like this, I am not too sure that you can find peer-reviewed sources. You can always try: https://csu-sfsu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?vid=01CALS_SFR:01CALS_SFR&lang=en.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I tried looking for the links, but there weren't any. You should edit your page and double tap on each source and add a URL for each source you used.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think that your content is clear and easy-to-read. I think you just need to add footnotes so people know where you got your information from.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I think that most of your sentences have little to no grammar mistakes. Also, I have a suggestion for one of your sentences, which says, "The band incorporates different forms of music elements and techniques that consist of classical, rock, and math rock." I think you can simplify it to read, "The band incorporates different types of musical elements and techniques: classical, rock, and math rock."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think your content is well-organized. However, I think you should consider adjusting your lead, in terms of organizing. For example, for the bullet point list, you can move what you wrote in the lead to a new section dedicated to just the members.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I think for your article, you should definitely include pictures and infoboxes. I looked at the WikiProject for rock music and looked at their featured articles and found the following rock band articles you could reference: The Beatles, U2, and R.E.M.. These articles all seem to follow the same format. They have the following sections in common (in this order, too): Lead, History (then subsections with a timeline), Musical style, Members, Discography, and Concert tours. You should make an info box to the top right side with a picture of the band, and then include some background information.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? I think your Wikipedia article does fit the notability requirements. I think you should just consider finding more sources and making sure you cite them correctly. I think sometimes Wikipedia's automatic citation generator misses some important information, so you have to go back and adjust certain things.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? You have five articles and I think you could try finding 2-3 more. This way you can have a lot of sources to compare your information with.
 * 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? Yes, looking over your article, it does seem to follow patterns of other similar articles. But like I said before, you should add an infobox on the band.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are other topics within the article that have their own Wikipedia article. For example, Yvette Young. (I think once your article has the green light, you can start including links to other Wiki articles, like Yvette's.)

Overall impressions

 * Overall, I think your article was well-written and concise. I think you did a great job finding sources that were up-to-date and relevant to your article's topic. You also did a good job at organizing your sections and following the patterns of other similar articles. Another good thing about your article is that your lead incorporates a brief description of what the body of your article discusses. Some things you could work on is fixing your references page, adding some more sections, specifically the band members section, and adding an infobox on the band. Other than that, you did a good job on your article draft.