User:Sarahamdani02/Cheb Hasni/Hollandaisecraver Peer Review

General info
Sarahamdani02
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarahamdani02/Cheb_Hasni?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cheb Hasni

Evaluate the drafted changes
While the overall content is professionally structured, the draft is missing a lead section, which the current version has. In that version, the lead section could be improved; the sentences are not all concise, generally uneven in length. Additionally, the current version features information that should exclusively be in an "Early Life" or "Life and Career" subsection ("son of a welder"... "working-class family"), as well as claims about his murder that lean too much towards one position on the identity of the killer, especially for the lead section. Thus, there's actually a lot you can change when you create your own lead section. When you write it up, make sure to write concise and complete sentences, as there are several sentences throughout your draft that do not match Wikipedia's standards of concise writing ("But his football aspirations were cut short due to an injury".) It's okay to pair shorter sentences together, as long as you maintain a standard of objectivity. As for the information you choose to put in the lead section, I'd include his English name, as well as its subsequent Arabic translation, and his birth date and death date. Because the lead section shouldn't be overly-detailed, feel free to mention his status as a singer, song style, notoriety, and death, though try to keep most of the details of his murder for the "Death" subsection, due to it already being a substantial section within your article. Because you haven't created a lead section yet, I'd observe the current version of the article and attempt to simplify it without losing the broader points. Even for the lead section, don't forget to cite your sentences, knowing you can recycle sources for later sections.

I think the content you're including is solid, with very little information I wouldn't include in a Wikipedia article. If I had to take any snippets of information out, it would be the last sentence of the "Life and Career" subsection ("Another major hit was "El Visa" a song about migration, which sold approximately 250,000 cassettes.") It's okay to mention the song, but perhaps include it in the same sentence where you mention "Beraka", due to it feeling like an awkward closer to the subsection on its own. For the most part, though, you keep the right amount of information to inform readers on the singer without leaning too much into one fact. Even when you make statements like "Hasni became one of the most prolific artists on the Raï scene", you have the correct sources to back it up. There's a clear harmony between your facts and references, which I think is the strongest aspect of your text, so far. Everything is supported, yet it doesn't read like an essay, but truly like a Wikipedia article. The only exception might be when you say that "the subjects of his songs were controversial and made the song popular with Algerian youth, who contributed to the song's estimated sales of one million copies". Throughout your article, you don't mention why these songs were controversial, which does make some of these statements feel unfounded. I think mentioning these reasons, and of course, citing them, would really improve your draft.

While all the facts you choose to include are relevant to their respective sections, I don't think you need a "Fame" subsection, as you already cover his notoriety and popularity in the "Life and Career" section. What I'd do is re-structure your sections as such: "Life and Career" (or even have an "Early Life" section if there's substantial information), "Death", as well as "Legacy" and "Discography", similar to the current version of the article. Because this singer seems to have well-documented controversy, yet enduring popularity, a "Legacy" subsection would fit him well. You don't have a "Discography" section yet, which is often recommended to include for singers, so I would check out the current version's discography, cross-examine the references to make sure all the song titles and dates match up, and leave it untouched if they do. While several sections need to be re-touched due to bias, discographies are typically objective.

The current version includes an infobox, and in one of the subsections, an image. Both of these stay objective, so I wouldn't alter them, and just keep them as is.

Your reference list, while utilizing a diverse group of sources that accurately back up your statements, could use some work. While it's good to search for new sources that aren't in the current version, other Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as references. I'd locate a specific source on that other Wikipedia page, and include that instead. Formatting-wise, three of your five sources are repeated in a different font, size, and citation style, which does make the overall reference list feel jarring. However, the five sources you do cite are linked to your in-text statements correctly. Check out other Wikipedia articles for their references and keep adding to yours, since four sources (minus the Wikipedia article you cite) does feel low for a page for this particular subject. Finally, while you don't need to copy every section from the current version, I would include an "External Links" section. In this case, I'd do the same thing I suggested for the discography; cross-reference with the current version's "External Links", and you'll mostly get to keep it the same.

If you do decide to write up a "Legacy" section, it's here where you should diverge the most from the current version. None of the statements are objective, and none are cited. The best thing to do, especially considering the number of retrospective articles you've already found, would be to craft a "Legacy" section from those. Back up your statements with sources, as you've been doing, and I know you can improve on the current version's section. Looking at how it is now, I can see why you chose to re-write the article!

Ultimately, the biggest challenge thus far will be re-phrasing some sentences, since many do not read like Wikipedia sentences. I'd look at how other singers' pages are modelled to improve your own sentences. When it comes to content, however, I think you're pretty much there. It's not a very long article, so you don't need that many sources, but keep looking to see if you can find anything the original editors missed. In relation to the current version, make sure to re-work the "Legacy" section. As I said earlier, you don't need to include one, but I'd at least alter the current version in some shape or form. You'll also need a lead section, but i think you can easily construct one from the references you've gathered, as well as keep some elements from the current version's lead section. While I don't think your draft has surpassed the current version in quality yet, you're definitely on track to do so! This is definitely a subject worthy of a page, though, and the efforts you've made regarding the content are evident. Keep up the good work!