User:Nhochfelder/Shamanic music/Atietz2020 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) Nhochfelder
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nhochfelder/Shamanic music

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There's no lead included in the sandbox, so I can't say
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? In the original article, yes, but it could be edited for conciseness and clarity.
 * 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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise, but could be edited, and maybe shortened (it's quite long as it is, more than one paragraph).

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? More information about the Qyl-Qobyz would be helpful-- as it is, that section is quite short. Information about the history of Shamanic practices could also be a good thing to add. It also might be good to leave more of the original article's information from "Shamanic and musical performance" (in addition to what you added). I would say the same about the sound section. Also, I would delete the "references" section at the end of the original article (above the endnotes), since it isn't correctly formatted for Wikipedia, and add any sources from there that are missing from the endnotes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? You asked about the section about shamanism and possession-- I think that could be a good section, if you edited the beginning (particularly the first sentence) to make it more neutral. It seems like it's just giving information about a certain practice, and good information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? As far as I can tell, yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Fairly. Could be more concise/use simpler language and sentence structures.
 * 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. It might be helpful to make an "instruments" section and include the drum and Qyl-Qobyz as sub-sections, just for clearer organization.

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? Some interesting information (especially about the drums) and good sources added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More sources and complete citations
 * How can the content added be improved? Better organization/use of subsections to organize