User:Ada jamanova/Friedrich Nietzsche/Ada jamanova 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)
 * I am reviewing Rhys Langridge's work
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Rhys Langridge/History of Basketball

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does satisfy this.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead does include a summary of the article's main talking points.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and is not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is solid and concise. It mentions all the talking points, therefore my peer did not have to include their additions as the major talking points were already present.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content adheres to current information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes there is some content missing, but basketball is almost impossible to summarize. The content present belongs.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it does, my peer added a women in basketball section that was not previously covered and represents a marginalized community in basketball.

Content evaluation
My peer has added a lot of valuable content to the existing article. Dealing with an equity gap and providing relevant information on the subject.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it is.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is perfect for a Wikipedia article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Maybe
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are good secondary sources, though the ones present do not represent a diverse spectrum of authors and one is written in 1998.

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?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well written, it is concise, clear and easy to read. There are no grammatical errors and it is well organized, the paragraphs seem to section of major points within the history presented.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images currently present.

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?
 * 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
The draft I am reviewing is not a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation
The quality of the draft is high. The content added provides information on a less represented community which is women in basketball. The NBA addition explains clearly major rule changes that make the current game recognizable. Sources are reliable.