User:Olivechine/Funky house/Sozzystar Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

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?

Content

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?

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?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Olivechine

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Funky house

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: The lead gives a strong synopsis of the genres, decades, and the sound characteristics. There are a few inconsistencies with the rest of the article including inspiration from the 1970s and 80s are described but it is not referenced in the rest of the article. Maybe incorporate a history or inspiration section to describe these referenced inspirations. Additionally the production and characteristics described in the lead are not included later on in the article.

Content: The content added is relevant but does not provide an strong explanation for Funky house. Some statements can be further explained such as describing what about Daft Punk includes them in the Funky house genre as well of songs of theirs to note for this genre. Also I would recommend listing out the compilation albums in the 2000s section. Also only Daft Punk is referenced to have really contributed to the genre so including some other artists in the History section would greatly improve this article.

Tone and Balance: This article is written in an unbiased and neutral tone! Great job!

Sources and References: Missing a citation for the claim about Roulé. Also missing some citations at the end of sentences in the Influence on Modern Music section.

Organization: There is a section for Deep House but does not include any content so I would recommend deleting this section for now or providing writing to support. The page has a great flow and is easy to read!

Image and Media: There are no image and media in this article which would help for them to get included. Some ideas are to include images of the artists referenced such as Daft Punk, Fisher, Matroda, Adeva, and more!