User:Taywall2828/Sundance Film Festival/Pwarsame 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, Shatche1, Rmoncada)
 * 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? Yes with the exception of a terminating period (.).
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead does include well defined and clear sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes all sections of the article are mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead covers all the information contained in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, short and clear. It defines what the article is about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, added content is relevant to the
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No, The added content is partially completed.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No on both accounts. There are no visible content gaps.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, all parties are represented in the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The added content shows no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No such claim exist within the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No all viewpoints are equally represented in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No persuasive tone detected.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, the article does seem to be missing some sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sourced material do reflect a literature relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? No, sourced material are not updated yet to include within the body paragraph.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes woman are represented but not all historically marginalized communities are represented.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links are missing in the article body. The word edit is marked in their place suggesting work in progress.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is written in clear language.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors detected.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, The added content are well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The picture is not visible in my editing template but when transported the article it show an image that represent the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, image is not shown.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Wikipedia commons did not return unacceptable image result. Also, the chosen image is that of a historical building.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes and no, I can see the image on third party medium but not on this specific template.

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? The is missing both references and sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are no articles referenced for this article.
 * 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? The article is structured nicely with heading and subheading equal to those of featured in Wikipedia.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, independent films, city of salt lake, and provo, Utah links do contain in the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Majority of the work is done, just missing few pieces here and there.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It needs improvement but nicely done.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add reference and sources.