User:Nhochfelder/Shamanic music/Caitlinbarr 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? 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?
 * Not yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The two sentences do an okay job of this but could be improved. What does "people who, whilst not themselves shamans, wish to evoke the cultural background of shamanism in some way" refer to?Since it's a vague and uncited claim, it should probably be addressed at some point.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead addresses some of the article's major sections although it does so in a disjointed and kind of awkward way.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it seems that one can find all of the information referenced somewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed, but this might partially be a function of problems with the article's organization.

Lead evaluation
The biggest problem with the lead is the lack of citations. It also fails to define what a shaman is, which is key to understanding the topic. I think that you should definitely clean it up at some point, once you have your plans for the article's organization down.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is very relevant. The information added to the Shaman's Drum section is particularly insightful, although it should probably be supplemented by information about practices by groups other than the Manchu. The background information added to the Shamanic and Musical Performance section is also a significant improvement over the original article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I don't know whether there's been any very recent challenges in how Shamanic music is studied, but from a layman's perspective the content added and the sources cited look like they are up-to-date enough.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There doesn't seem to be any content that does not belong. I don't know how many sources exist in this topic, but perhaps try to find sources from a broader array of cultures for the major sections.

Content evaluation
The content that's been added so far has really improved the article, although it might be a good idea to draw on scholarship pertaining to a wider range of cultures if possible.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content that's been added appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I agree that the section on Shamanic Music and Possessions seems to only exist to advance one scholar's argument, and should probably be deleted.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Other than the above example, I don't think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the added content is neutral and balanced. However, I do agree with you that the Shamanic Music and Possessions section should be deleted, unless more sources are found to back it up and oppose it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * This doesn't regard new content, but it looks like you forgot to copy over some of the citations from the original article into your sandbox, which you should probably go back and add. For example, you left a note for yourself about a paragraph in the Shaman's Drum section about lack of citations and whether you should just delete that part. But there are actually citations present in the original article!
 * All added information is cited from reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with the topic. I think perhaps a wider range of sources would be preferable, if possible.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources seem recent enough to me, but then again I don't really have the appropriate level of familiarity to answer that.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links I checked worked!

Sources and references evaluation
The added sources are very strong; perhaps more should be added.

The sources section of the original article doesn't seem to have a lot of links and in some cases are formatted strangely or missing information like titles. The books cited also don't include ISBN numbers. I think it'd be a good idea to clean this area up a bit.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the added content is clear and readable. (Though some of the original content could probably be reworded for clarity and conciseness.)
 * More wiki links should be added to topics such as "Manchu," "Kazakh," or "Tuvan" that readers might not have the background to immediately recognize.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No spelling errors.
 * There are a couple of spots where the comma/period is placed outside the quotation marks rather than inside.
 * Not exactly grammatical, but the very long links in the Use of Sounds and Shaman's Drum sections should be trimmed or deleted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It looks like you're still writing it, but the Qyl-Qobyz section is quite short. If you're not going to expand it, maybe you can fold it in with the discussion of drums under an Instruments subheading?
 * I know you're also still editing the Shamanic Groups section, but very different information is densely packed there so maybe it should be divided into different paragraphs or bullet points.
 * I think the original article (including the portions you don't have in your sandbox) could probably be pulled into a tighter and clearer organizational format.

Organization evaluation
This element of the article is still in progress. The current additions make the article easier to read. However, there are some technical issues and places where the article's overall organization could be adjusted.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is definitely improved by the additional content. Although the article does already feel more complete, it is still in progress.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Adds clarity and essential background information to the original article's sometimes confusing and elliptic explanations.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More can be added.
 * Aforementioned citation issues can be fixed.
 * Organization of overall article should be more streamlined.

Overall evaluation
This work in progress is definitely an improvement over the original article, especially in its addition of important clarifying background information. However, it still needs some more attention, especially in terms of organization and fixing the lead. I would definitely prioritize copying over the citations you're missing from the original article so as not to confuse yourself.