User:Madelynbrouwer/Psychology of music preference/Emilystlcopedit 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? (Madelynbrouwer)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Madelynbrouwer/Psychology of music preference

Lead
'''Guiding questions: what is meant by lead? the original article?'''


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
 * 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? the lead in the original article mentions cognitive development that is not explicitly directed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead looks relatively concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead looks like it provides a good background to what the rest of the article will talk about but it is unclear how exactly cognitive development relates.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation
content looks like it is factual and up-to-date

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? the differences between men and women are both represented in the article
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and both men and women are equally represented in this article

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? relatively, there is a mix of old and new sources
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? not explicitly
 * Check a few links. Do they work? some issues with the dates on the articles and the last article link does not work

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references appear to be reliable and factual, they do not directly represent marginalized authors.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the information added will be relevant and beneficial
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear structure
 * How can the content added be improved? check the last source and dates to make sure they will not get flagged.

Overall evaluation
Overall it looks good and will be a good addition to the current article.