User:Kingleothethird/Bumbershoot/Claymeg18 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)
 * 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?
 * No, the lead hasn't been updated to reflect the new content. Copying the current article to the sandbox and editing it from there may be helpful to coordinate what changes have been made!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes! The introductory sentence is good as it is. I think adding more information to the intro sentence is unnecessary.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead includes a contents section, but adding a brief description to the introduction paragraph about what's in the article could be beneficial for users that are reading the article thoroughly.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes! The Lead includes additional information about the producer of the festival and adds to the "AEG Live takes over" section of the current article that's in place as well as "One Reel takes over" and "History". I think the information that the user wants to add is beneficial to the article and will help to improve it.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I don't think the lead is overly detailed as the sections included in the article already are pretty detailed as for the history of the festival. I think this is information that should be included and is not too much.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! The content goes within the sections that are within the article already, so it fits very well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Some of the content added is up to date, however since the information is more about the history of the festival, I don't think this information is necessary to be super up to date as these details about the festival haven't changed.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * This might be a personal suggestion, but I think it could be beneficial to add something about how many attendees there have been in more recent years. I think that could be something cool to look at especially for users that are interested in the festival now. At some points, there are brief notes that I think should be expanded on (One Reel Takes Over section)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. I don't think Bumbershoot is a historically underrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I think the content added is neutral, but the quotes included by performers may need to be taken out as they may make the information seem biased. (History section)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I don't think there is. The article is mainly about the festival in general and the history behind it, so I don't believe there really is a position to be biased towards besides maybe the quotes that I mentioned that are favoring the festival.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Like I mentioned, I think adding the number of attendees for more recent year could be something interesting to add, to make the article seem more present. I think the history of the festival may be a little overrepresented as this is the majority of the article. Adding information about the present state of the festival would make it more appealing to readers.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, the quotes by performers are the only thing that could persuade the reader to favor the festival.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the content is added from mainly Seattle sources which is where the festival takes place, which is relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough. However, adding additional available sources on the topic would be beneficial.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources added, like I mentioned, I don't think need to be current as they're mainly about the history, but adding sources from more recent years could be interesting to include!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors. There isn't any sources that are repeats which is good. I don't think this topic would be something that would include historically marginalized individuals, so I don't think this would be necessary for this article in particular.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I am not able to see the content added within the article itself as it's on a separate page, so that might be beneficial because it's difficult to switch back and forth to see where the information is supposed to be included within the different sections. Making the content full sentences would also be helpful for me to see where it will fit in with the content already in the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content isn't in full sentences, so this would be helpful. There are no spelling errors though!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is well-organized. The information fits in with the current sections already within the article. Adding additional major points like venue or adding references to the main things associated with Bumbershoot could be beneficial so that everything connects together more easily.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article includes an image of the festival. Adding additional photos might be interesting though.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the image includes a caption as well as genre, dates, location, years active, founded, and website. I think this is a great caption, I wouldn't change anything about it personally.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the image is at the top of the article next to the first paragraph. I would keep it where it is!

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?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list is not super exhaustive. Like I said, it could be beneficial to add more recent sources as there is a lot of articles about Bumbershoot each year. This could be helpful for readers to know the information is current and relevant to what Bumbershoot is today.
 * 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, the patterns are similar and I think laid out in the most effective way compared with other articles that are similar.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, the article connects to many relevant articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content adds to the quality of the topics that are already presented. I think it is more complete, but adding more information about more recent years of Bumbershoot would be helpful.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added are that it allows the article to go more in depth about how Bumbershoot became what it is today and also adds a lot of helpful information for the AEG section that doesn't currently have a lot of information
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Making the content more recent, adding number of attendees for more recent years, including various types of music that are played at Bumbershoot, maybe what artists have played in the past (like well-known ones, or a variety of artists to show the diversity of the performers that come every year).
 * Also adding information about the other types of activities Bumbershoot has to offer with art and food vendors could be cool to show that Bumbershoot isn't just music-centered festival.