User:TheLastPuzzlePiece/Tiburón (Rubén Blades song)/Picoides 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? (provide username): TheLastPuzzlePiece
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TheLastPuzzlePiece/Tiburón (Rubén Blades song)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * See below
 * 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?
 * No; however not sure how necessary it is in an article like this.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but it's fine I think
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Good length with good balance of detail

Lead evaluation
I think your lead is very effective for an article like this. Does exactly what it's supposed to.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Seems like there could be some expansion on the song's political unpopularity. Also maybe deconstruct the lyrics, however, don't know if there are sources out there with information like that.

Content evaluation
Seems fine, just maybe expand where you can.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, and where opinions are expressed they are cited.
 * Maybe try to include another opinion from a reviewer?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * A bit, but does not significantly influence the read. Maybe needs another source or review to round it out?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
I think it's fine, just include another source if possible.

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?
 * As current as they can be
 * 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?
 * A bit short but very well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The structure and writing is great!

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


 * 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?

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?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes

New Article Evaluation
See below

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Expand the information that you have if you can. Totally understand if there are minimal sources out there.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Great writing and flow with good information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As mentioned before, just expand a bit.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think it's a good article about a unique topic, just needs a bit more, in my opinion. Nice work!