User:Taywall2828/Sundance Film Festival/Ksm0408 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: Sundance Film Festival

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, because my peer is editing in their sandbox which I do not have access to.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead includes three sentences that do well at giving an overview of the article topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not. Everything mentioned in the lead is covered at some point within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All of the content in the article relates back to main topic. My peer has only added content in their sandbox, and I do not have access to this.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content of the article appears to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content included is relevant to the article topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No the article does not discuss equity gaps nor topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The article's current content presents with a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I would say no, there seems to be no bias tones in the articles. It reads as a dissemination of facts about the Sundance file festival.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't know that a particular viewpoint was over or underrepresented. However, maybe adding a section with a view point about controversies/issues around the festival over the years.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content of the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any favor.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are some parts of the article that need citations and/or additional verification.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources do reflect some of the available literature on the topic. As there are areas that need some citations and a couple of gaps in information, I believe there is more literatue available on this topic.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I was able to look into a few of the sources. I would say that the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. But there I would point to a need for more diversity in the types of sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that I checked within the article worked. However, several of the links the in the reference section did not work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is a very easy read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would say that overall the article is organized well. From the lead, the article goes into the history, it's evolution, other festivals that resulted as an extension of the festival and information about the festival present day.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes an image of one of the theaters where the screenings are held. I would not say that the pictures provide a better understanding of the topic but it is a nice graphic.
 * Are images well-captioned? The picture is well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image adheres to Wikipedia's image and media policy.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The lay out of the picture is visually appealing.

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? I would say yes. Some of the sources listed would not meet the criteria but more three would.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources does not seem super exhaustive. A good bit of the sources are from periodicals and information sourced by Sundance themselves.
 * 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, it does. The article follows the typical pattern of Wikipedia articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article does link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? My peer has not added content to the article just yet. Editing is being done in the sandbox.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The current strength of the article is it's neutral tone and concision. Also, it is an easy read.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the history section could expounded upon more. Also pointing out controversies, problems, or critical views of the festival might aid in balancing out the article. Adding citation where needed would improve the article. Also, it would also be helpful to add more sound diverse sources to add creditability to the article.