User:Mcguirp/Music education/HaylAtk23 Peer Review

The article that I am peer reviewing is an addition to an already existing Wikipedia page. The main Wikipedia page is Music Education, but lacks a sub focus on Latin America, which this page will now cover.

The information provided is both historical and up-to-date, providing a great timeline and progression on music education in Latin America.

Appears content is not missing, although it is challenging to assess as I am not an expert in this topic. However, the information provided is clear, provides an appropriate historical timeline and detail.

All content is relevant and appropriate. There is no information that is out of place or irrelevant to the topic.

The content is neutral and factual based. There is no bias tone or opinion and the information is not written to persuade the reader. The article is written to state facts about the musical education in Latin America.

The content is clear and concise. It is well-written, easy to follow along and informative. The page provides the writer with a great deal of information regarding the topic but is presented in a manageable and understandable format.

There is an appropriate amount of reliable resources. Each piece of information is supported by a secondary source and cited to indicate this.

The citations range in dates, with one being as new as 2020. The range in dates provides a variety of information and indicates the historical component presenting within the article.

One area for improvement would be having secondary sources that provided more insight into the topic. For example, the hyperlinks were to other Wikipedia pages which provided details on the countries being discussed but rather the links could provide more support on the topic itself. Links to Latin American music or instruments used would provide a more enriching experience for the reader.

Overall the article is well written, well researched and factual. This article is an excellent addition to the music education page with well supported references. The page has two great pictures for visual content. For improvement, I would suggest adding a more interactive secondary source that allowed the reader an alternative media format to engage with the content.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)