User:AaronAspelund/Badminton in the United States/Madsngo Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * AaronAspelund
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:AaronAspelund/Badminton in the United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead opens up a brief history of the introduction to Badmitten as a whole and mentions influences of the sport to the United States.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead mentions celebrates and influencers to Badminton. The later sub articles mention a brief history of those people and their influences and associations to the sport.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not precisely, the lead mentions these things, but does not clearly state that the following information will be available. It could mention and link all sections of the article a little further.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the article mentions a few celebrities but does not mention them all in the information following.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it is all new information/sources ranging from 2019-2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content missing, yes. But overall, has all the information needed that elevated the quality of the article as opposed to the previous article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral in tone but should give off a more "academic" tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, all content is generalized.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all information is reliable. There is only one source that was bias toward an opinion.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they give concrete information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are ranging from 2019 to 2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, but I would fix then formatting a little bit.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I have seen so far, more just the tone rather than grammar and spelling.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but more information categorized may let it be easier on the eyes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article provided more images than the actual article (that didn't haven any).
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes,
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, but could be a little larger.

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?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The sources/references listed are concrete information. This article should show concrete information and all references show that.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, way more complete than the actual article.The current article has a few sentences.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Everything is a strength to the article. The previous article mentioned very generic information.,
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Keep adding more information to the article, other than that, it has been improved significantly that it looks more like an actual article.