User:Sozzystar/Alix Page/Hannahgerny 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?

Sozzystar

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Alix Page

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall

The article looks great!! I think that you've added a lot to improve the article and the content you've included is relevant. I think there are a few areas you could add more information to (like the lead and career section), but overall you've added a lot of the available information about her. My only other suggestion is that you get rid of the history section and put that information into the other sections, which I think would make your article better organized. Overall, good job:))

Lead

I think the lead could be updated to reflect new content/ a very brief description of the new sections
- Obviously you can't include too much detail here, but another sentence could be good
  - ex: Page began song writing in high school and has since released 2 EPs and opened for multiple tours, including Gracie Abrams

Content

The content added is relevant and up-to-date
The only gaps I see that could have added information
- career section:
  - add the year her singles stripes and frank were released in
  - no mention of her debut EP old news, add a sentence about this and more details if available (like who produced it)
  - saw from source 13 that she recorded the song radiohead in one take, this could be a relevant detail to add
- early life section:
  - add information about her high school/ start as a songwriter to give more background about her early life (I read on source 1 she went to an arts high school and read on source 2 the husband of her high school music director produced her album)
  - it looks like alix was in college while she released her EP/ went on tour, could be interesting to add to this section

Tone and balance

content is all neutral and appears unbiased

Sources and references

The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say and the sources are current/ best available and they all work
A little harder to find sources for a lesser known artist, so I think you've done a good job incorporating a variety of sources to build up this page

Organization

The content is well written and easy to read
I like that you organize the career section by year, it makes it easier to follow
You could incorporate the information from the history section into the early life and career section which might make the article more cohesive
- Everything about high school could go in the early life section and the information about her debut EP, Goose, and her representation could go in the career section

Images and media

I think the images do a lot to add to the page and they are well-captioned