User:Macylynn27/Women in music education/Sinno024 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? Macylynn27
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Macylynn27/Women in music education

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 wasn't updated, but I feel like it was already a string lead. It includes an intro sentence that is clear, concise and describes the article's topic just fine. When you put the article together fully you could ad a sentence or two to describe the major sections you've added. The lead does not include any information that is not present in the remainder of the article.

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?

Content evaluation
The added content is all relevant to the topic and is up to date. There doesn't seem to be any information missing or any information that doesn't belong in the article.

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
All of the article's content is very neutral, not at all biased and just presents the facts. There are no over or underrepresented viewpoints in my opinion. The content added doesn't attempt 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I'm not seeing any citations or references on the draft. Maybe you haven't added them yet, but be sure to cite where you are getting the information. All of the information on the original article are cited and they seem to be thorough and current. The links that I tried on the original article 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
All of the content on the draft is well written and easy to follow. I didn't notice any spelling or grammar problems in the draft. The added content is much more organized and has a much clearer structure than the content in the original article.

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
There is only one image on the original article and none in the draft. The image that is on the original page is well captioned, adheres to the Wikipedia copyright regulations. There could be more visual representation in the article overall.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The original article does is supported by more than 3 reliable sources on the subject. These sources do represent the existing content of the page. The draft however has no sources listed. The draft that contains intended additions to the original article does follow the patterns of similar articles. The article does link to other articles so it is more discoverable.

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
I think the added content does improve the overall quality of the article, it will definitely make the article more complete when the draft is added to the main page. The draft does a good job of adding relevant information that was not present in the main article. You should make sure that you are citing all of your sources correctly and maybe add a couple more images.