User:Srg18405/7 Year Bitch/Ksully9900 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? Srg18405
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 7 Year Bitch

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated but I feel like the lead on the article is concise and to the point of the subject.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, the lead explains what 7 Year Bitch is and how long it has been around.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * As far as I can tell, there has not been any content added to this article yet by the group. Currently the article was last edited on June 2020. I think the information is pretty solid but there probably could be more information on what the band did while they were together. There are also very few links on the band members information so that might be a good thing to add. I do not think the topic is addressing any historically underrepresented populations of topics because it is only about a band.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The article has neutral content and nothing seems heavily biased.
 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * 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, I feel like there could be a lot of information added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? No but the band broke up in 1997 so maybe some added information about the individuals' new careers post-band.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It seems as if the authors they pulled information from are a diverse group.
 * 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? No, the content needs a lot of help in this category. There are many sentences that are very wordy and confusing. For example one sentence says "but it was overshadowed by Sargent's death on June 27, through passing out on her back after returning home from a party where she had drunk alcohol and taken a small amount of heroin." as you can see in this example, the article is written poorly and should be reworded.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a ton of commas that cause long and confusing sentences that should be changed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is pretty barren of information though. I think it could be better organized. I think there could be a section for tragedies/deaths that happened in the group so that information can be separated from what the band completed musically.

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

There were no images added.
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
It is difficult to give an overall evaluation because I don't think they have added the work they have done to the article yet. Overall, I think the article has a lot of room for growth and there are many areas that can be easily fixed. I am excited to see the new information your group can find.

Ksully9900 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)