User:Jessmhill/Pipe organ/Alisa.coffey Peer Review
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? (Jessmhill)
- Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jessmhill/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead on the pipe organ page is a bit specific. It could be trimmed to direct the reader to more historic detail that follows. The opening sentence for your medieval section, however, is excellent. You do include a detail about the Abbey of Fecamp in your medieval lead. That could probably be turned into a general statement, and move that detail into the subheading on organ usage in churches.
- 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?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? See note above. Are you editing the overall lead for the Pipe Organ page?
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, you offer scholarly work on the historical development. Are you adding to what is already present on the Pipe Organ page or replacing?
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Bibliography includes some very recent sources.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The pipe organ page includes some technical details on instrument functionality (stops, etc.). Are you going to include some of those details?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, article covers the medieval period. Do you have any information on who played organs during the medieval era? Is it principally male performers or do females play as well (I need to look into this on my own topic!)
Content evaluation
[edit]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 The article does a good job at showing that there is some controversy over when organs became permanent fixtures in churches and when they began to be accepted and used within churches. Perhaps you could flesh out some of the specific instances we know about in a more detailed way.
[edit]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 Sources look mostly current. Links appear to work well. There is a female author included. And all the titles seem to address the topic at hand.
[edit]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 I really like the way you've chosen to break down the topic. You could perhaps switch usage in churches and permanent installations? Presumably, organs would be used in churches before they were installed there? There are just a few grammatical details to address. I'd personally stay away from "you" usage in the third to last sentence of the installation paragraph. "There was" should be "there were" I think in the second sentence of Use of organs.
[edit]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 There are images already present on the Pipe Organ page. Are you using those or choosing different ones? Can you find any sound files for portative and positive, medieval era, etc?
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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
[edit]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?