User:Leonaaklipi/Capitol Hill Block Party/Kristen RL 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? Leonaaklipi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Leonaaklipi/Capitol Hill Block Party

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Leona. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections, except for "History". The information about the sponsors is not present in any of the article's sections, only in the Lead. The Lead is concise, but includes some extra details, like the list of sponsors as previously mentioned.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The added content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. I appreciate that she mentioned what current status of the block party due to COVID. I don't think there is missing content or content that doesn't belong. The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Its far as relating to historically underrepresented populations and topics, the article could mention that the Block Party takes place on land of the Coast Salish peoples.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The added content is neutral. There are not any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position, and there are not overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints. The content does not appear to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. While the article does use reliable sources like Seattle Times and Seattle.gov, it includes a blog, CHS Capital Hill Seattle. I would recommend trying to find similar articles but from more reputable sources, like Seattle Times or potentially news reports through local broadcasting reports, like King 5. The sources are thorough, current, and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written, it does not have grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized, but I would recommend separating the first paragraph of the “Controversy” section into two. I would dedicate one paragraph to supporters of the block party and one paragraph to opponents. I think it might be a little clearer if it doesn’t switch back and forth between proponents and opponents. Also, I don’t think the list of sponsors should be in the Lead section since the sponsors aren't mentioned in any of the other sections in the article. I think it would be beneficial to create a specific “Sponsors” section, instead.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic. The images are well-captioned and adhere to WIkipedia's copyright regulations. The second image, "Stage near Neomo's in 2008" is a little small and difficult to see.

Overall impressions
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?

Overall evaluation
The contend added has improved the overall quality of the article. The article definitely seems more complete. There are many strengths of the added content. The "History" and "Controversy" section are well written, clear, and easy to understand. I appreciate the neutrality in the "Controversy" section. All perspectives are provided, without leaning one way or the other. The added content can be improved by adjusting the sponsorship information in the Lead, perhaps by adding a "Sponsorship" section. Adjusting the layout of the "Controversy" section by separating the two viewpoints into two separate paragraphs may be beneficial. This way, the sentences don't switch back and forth between viewpoints. Lastly, adding a few more reliable sources may be beneficial, as well.