User:Sierra.sagucio/Musical Anhedonia/Emil.mathai 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? Sierra.sagucio
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Musical anhedonia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? NA
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? YES
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? NOT really, this article does not have alot added to it
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? NA
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes there is sufficient detail in the lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? NA
 * Is the content added up-to-date? range is from 2014 to 2017
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? NA
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? NA

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? NA
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? not really
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NA

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? NA
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, but add more
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the most recent sources are from 2016
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, NA
 * 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? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? none
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media NA


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NA
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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? YEs
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? there are not alot of sources
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not really discoverable

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There is alot of potential
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? Just find more sources and I think you can contribute a substantial amount to the article