User:Nrjohns1/New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival/Shoelace01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nrjohns1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * I cannot find a Sandbox Draft for this article


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival

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.)

LEAD:

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, I couldn't find the sandbox draft for this article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I think the introduction sentence clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead introduction on the article is a bit wordy, might be a little too much information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the information regarding Covid. I'm not sure where it should be placed. Maybe under history. I'm just not sure if its needed in the main lead of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say its a little over detailed.

CONTENT:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? As of now, no new information has been added from my peer
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I believe so. Information has been added regarding covid which is relatively new data. However, new information could possibly be added to the background section. Right now the last data given is from 1969 in that section. I guess it would depend on how you want the data to be set up. Anything prior to the current date could be labeled as background. Maybe even a section name change would clear up any confusion.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would check to see if any information is double stated. If any reliable information is available on past performers, that data might be useful to the article. Also, it might be beneficial to add more to the poster section. I find the art work of these posters to be extremally important to the festival. I'm not sure if everything in this article is needed, so I would work closely as a group to see if anything is overstated.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I believe an argument could be made that it does. New Orleans culture and Jazz music is probably underrepresented on Wikipedia.

TONE AND BALANCE:

 * Is the content added neutral? As of now, no new content has been added by my peer. The original is written in a neutral tone,
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No new content has been added but the original is not written in a biased tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints have been under or overrepresented. Some information might have been doubled stated. The foundation might need to be separated from the festival page? Although the information is relevant, it might be beneficial to separate the two and have them linked together.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No new content has been added from my peer, yet.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new sources have been added, yet.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) No new sources have been added, yet. I did not click on every original source but the original content seems to accurately reflect the sources cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No new sources have been added, yet. The original article cites a diverse range of available resources.
 * Are the sources current? No new sources have been added, yet. Original sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No new sources have been added, yet. The original article has some great sources that could still be used
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No new sources have been added, yet. The original article cites some sources that are from the UNO library. Some of these sources could be used to further illuminate on subtopics regarding the main topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No new sources have been added, yet. The links I checked in the original article works.

ORGANIZATION:

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No new information has been added, yet. I think the original content could use some reorganization. Subtopics and subheadings might need to be reworked.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I'm not seeing a bunch of grammatical or spelling errors, but rewriting some of the original content might be beneficial. Leaving out or reorganizing some information on the lead like the "In addition to the Festival" might help to clear up that section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think some work can be done in this department of the article. Some reorganizing would be useful in making things easier to understand.

IMAGE AND MEDIA:

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No new content has been added by my peer. The original article has some interesting images. I wonder if more posters could be added.
 * Are images well-captioned? No new content has been added by my peer. the original is well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No new content has been added by my peer. Yes to the original
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No new content has been added by my peer. Some of the original photos could be rearranged.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No new content has been added by my peer.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No new content has been added by my peer.
 * How can the content added be improved? No new content has been added by my peer.