User:Kingleothethird/Bumbershoot/COM 482 1 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? < User:Kingleothethird
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kingleothethird/Bumbershoot

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No. This lead concisely summarizes the Bumbershoot event.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the section about AEG is well cited and sequentially makes sense. One thing I would change would be to lighten up on the reliance of quotes throughout. I think this would flow better if quotes were paraphrased, rather than direct quotes. This section - and that "legacy New Orleanians like Dr. John and Irma Thomas were consigned to opening slots for the likes of Bon Jovi"- (this is very wordy and could be rephrased better. Rathe- Dr. John and Irma Thomas were granted (simply language) the opening spots for talent like Bon Jovi. - Cite your source
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the content added is up to date. Some of the links prior to revision are broken and could be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content added was an appropriate addition to the article and summarizes the events that have unfolded within Bumbershoot very well. I think elaborating on the failure to renew Bumbershoot would be great to detail with a financial citation of some sort. I would tie in COVID if that was a detrimental factor to the future of Bumbershoot. If it is not, I would leave it out or simply link an already standing COVID Wikipedia link that addresses the financial burdens COVID thrust onto the economy.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? As an article focused on entertainment, this is not applicable.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall tone is very balanced and summarizes sources well other than some of the direct quotes. These quotes are not necessary and could be summarized by the sentences you have following them. I would rephrase these. Rather than direct quotes, simply break these quotes down into understandable summaries of what the person cited is saying. Rather than integrate quotes, use them to help construct your summaries.

AEG was acquainted with the festival "having served in a secondary production role between 2007 and 2009"

"financially healthy company"

Chris Porter, "Bumbershoot's music booker of nearly two decades", says that "This time [One Reel] had to bow down to the way AEG wanted to do things in order to get the deal done

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources recently added.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Could be improved on, but the information included is great.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minor due to confusion around quotations.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. This looks great!!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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
Great job!! You really improved the previous article very well. I can tell that you did a lot of research and have the information to back up your summary. Overall, your article was written in a logical order and I think you have so much potential in continuing to expand on the future of Bumbershoot.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?