User:Taywall2828/Sundance Film Festival/Kmklein1 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? (taywall2828)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Taywall2828/Sundance Film Festival

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the topic is clearly summarized in a brief statement.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes.
 * 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 in the proper way, and does not contain too many specific details.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all added content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content added seems to be relevant to the topic and stays within the constraints of the lead.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the Notable Documentaries section deals with WIkipedia equity gaps. The documentaries relate to underrepresented populations and topics such as, human rights in China, police corruption, and people of color. There is also a section on diversity for women and people of color.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Not all of the content is neutral. The section on the documentary Hooligan Sparrow states that the film is "brave" which is a subjective term; the description for documentaries makes a statement on some of the "best and most notable documentaries," this should be reworded to a more objective point of view. These kinds of terms, which typically indicate bias, are found in some places throughout the article and should be revised to avoid.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not particularly, the biased language seems to be directed in a way that is meant to reiterate cited sources, but that is not always clear.
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * All sources are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Cited Source 66 did not work when tried, but every other link that I tried worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The information tends to be concise and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some small punctuation errors, such as missing commas, periodically through the article.
 * 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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the article.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * There are plenty of sources to back up each review and documentary described, which is important in an article like this.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Removing small pieces of bias-indicative language, there are more applicable spaces to link Wikipedia articles, adding more images could serve this article well.