User talk:Kingleothethird/Bumbershoot/Toria20 Peer Review

I peer-reviewed your page! It's also down below if you would rather read it from here.

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there's a lot that has been changed/added. 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, consider expanding on the first paragraph in order to mention the article's major sections. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pretty concise, a bit more important details could help prepare the reader for the other sections. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I also think the added section about bumbershoot in the future (COVID, etc.) is a quick give-away of how up-to-date the content is. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In terms of what potentially could be missing, insight about the festival itself could be useful (food venders, stages, the art, ticket options, and more!) Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The "late-1970's retreat" section seems to be lacking in comparison to the details provided in the other sections. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the seemingly more "finalized" content in the sandbox does seem backed up! Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work? Everything looks good in this section!

Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have 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? For the content in the sandbox, everything looks pretty good so far. There are some grammatical errors, but I'm sure you'll look over that as you keep on editing. I suggest re-reading some of the sections written, some of the incorporated quotes are where the most errors are.

Organization evaluation 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 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? New Article Evaluation 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, the content is pretty well-organized and the content seems pretty clear. There are some suggestions I left above concerning areas that I felt could need a bit of improvement- minor mistakes or sections that I felt could have more content. Ultimately, great job!