User:Adg21a/Basking in reflected glory/Rossannm Peer Review

General info
Adg21a - Basking in reflected glory article
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Adg21a/Basking in reflected glory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Basking in reflected glory

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

-the lead hasn't been updated yet. This group seems to be working on the body currently, but they do have a few heading ideas.

Content:

-yes, the content is relevant and up to date

-This isn't the full article in the sandbox, so it's a little hard to tell what is missing. I wished there had been an explanation of BIRGing, but they might not have felt the need to update that yet.

-I don't believe that it addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance:

-The content added is neutral.

-The claims don't appear to be biased, but there also aren't a lot of sources listed. Adding sources might help reduce bias.

-The viewpoints are not over or under represented.

-The content does not seem to attempt to persuade or provide bias.

Sources/References:

-The last two sections, "determining target audience" and "betting," don't have any sources listed. The rest of the content does.

-The content does accurately reflect the cited sources. Some of the links are Wikipedia articles, but the sandbox does have legitimate sources which help. These are thorough and current sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors.

-There are only two sources that aren't Wikipedia articles, so it might be helpful to add some more for a wider variety of information.

-yes, the links work.

Organization:

-the content is concise, clear, and easy to read

-I don't see any grammatical errors

-The content is broken down into sections, but it appears to jump around to a lot of different topics. I can't tell if they've copy and pasted different parts of the article or if this is how it is written. If it's just various parts of the article in here for sandbox purposes, it's fine. If it is intended to be in this order, the group should potentially consider placing similar information near each other. The jump from fantasy sports to nationalism to pronoun usage can get a little confusing for the reader.

Images/Media:

-there are no images or media.

Overall impressions:

-This is a good start to add more to the article, but I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a finished draft. Adding additional credible sources would significantly add to the overall quality of the article.

-I do like that the authors have linked to other Wikipedia pages. Especially in the "significance of pronoun usage" section, this really helped my understanding of the topic.

-The content can be improved by expanding on certain points in the article. The last two sections feel a little rushed, and going into more depth on the topics might help the overall content development.