User talk:Leonaaklipi/Capitol Hill Block Party

Peer review[edit] This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit] Whose work are you reviewing? Leonaaklipi Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Leonaaklipi/Capitol Hill Block Party Lead[edit] Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation[edit]

The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Leona. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections, except for "History". The information about the sponsors is not present in any of the article's sections, only in the Lead. The Lead is concise, but includes some extra details, like the list of sponsors as previously mentioned.

Content[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Content evaluation[edit]

The added content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. I appreciate that she mentioned what current status of the block party due to COVID. I don't think there is missing content or content that doesn't belong. The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Its far as relating to historically underrepresented populations and topics, the article could mention that the Block Party takes place on land of the Coast Salish peoples.

Tone and Balance[edit] 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? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

The added content is neutral. There are not any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position, and there are not overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints. The content does not appear to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References[edit] Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? 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? Sources and references evaluation[edit]

Not all of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. While the article does use reliable sources like Seattle Times and Seattle.gov, it includes a blog, CHS Capital Hill Seattle. I would recommend trying to find similar articles but from more reputable sources, like Seattle Times or potentially news reports through local broadcasting reports, like King 5. The sources are thorough, current, and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The links work.

Organization[edit] 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? Organization evaluation[edit]

The content is well-written, it does not have grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized, but I would recommend separating the first paragraph of the “Controversy” section into two. I would dedicate one paragraph to supporters of the block party and one paragraph to opponents. I think it might be a little clearer if it doesn’t switch back and forth between proponents and opponents. Also, I don’t think the list of sponsors should be in the Lead section since the sponsors aren't mentioned in any of the other sections in the article. I think it would be beneficial to create a specific “Sponsors” section, instead.

Images and Media[edit] 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[edit] The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic. The images are well-captioned and adhere to WIkipedia's copyright regulations. The second image, "Stage near Neomo's in 2008" is a little small and difficult to see.

Overall impressions[edit] 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 evaluation[edit]

The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The article definitely seems more complete. There are many strengths of the added content. The "History" and "Controversy" section are well written, clear, and easy to understand. I appreciate the neutrality in the "Controversy" section. All perspectives are provided, without leaning one way or the other. The added content can be improved by adjusting the sponsorship information in the Lead, perhaps by adding a "Sponsorship" section. Adjusting the layout of the "Controversy" section by separating the two viewpoints into two separate paragraphs may be beneficial. This way, the sentences don't switch back and forth between viewpoints. Lastly, adding a few more reliable sources may be beneficial, as well.

Kristen RL (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Kristen

Hi Leona! First off I'm a big fan of CHBP so super excited this page is getting a much needed upgrade! I think you did a really great job adding to the little information that the article had.

I have just a few notes 1. I think you have a good opportunity to try and replace one if not both of the photos as they aren't great captures of the event. I'm sure you can find one from an article from the Seattle Times, etc. reviewing a weekend. I think also one of their infamous lineup posters would be a great addition as it displays what a lineup at the festival looks like. 2. I think a list of notable performers or performances could be cool if thats something their is info on, etc. but just an idea! 3. I think the addition of the controversy section was a smart choice. I think especially in regards to a music festival which seems to be super popular and fun always has its downfalls and they need to be noted to accurately portray the event and response of the public. I think that I would find somewhere else for you to put the positive feedback from the public so your entire controversy section is just controversial feedback. I think you have some great positive points in there that you should for sure keep but perhaps place somewhere else? I think it's great that you have both sides included on the CHBP page which makes it neutral. You could maybe put it in the history and why it's significant to the Seattle scene? 4. It might be cool to comment on the attendance numbers over time if that information is available or how many acts there are each year now, etc. (I just looked at a couple other music festival Wiki pages to get some ideas). 5. I also just wanted to touch on your second sentence in your Controversy section. I'm not sure if you are comparing this event to the significance that gay pride holds, I think that that might be an inappropriate comparison if so. Do you mean that cap hill block party invests in pride culture? Or do you mean that it is a similar event to Pride? Either way, needs reworking / clarification :) I could be reading it wrong but if I am maybe a little rewording could be good. 6. I loved that you touched on accessibility. I think that is so important!!

Kingleothethird (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kingleothethird and Kristen RL for peer reviewing my article. I have made changes to my article based on your comments about the images used, controversy section, and sources used. Your feedback was super helpful! Leonaaklipi (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)