User:Adriel824/Nike Blazers/Chrisuw Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Adriel824
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Adriel824/Nike Blazers

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?

Lead evaluation
The first paragraph does a great job of introducing the shoe. Maybe add some design features without going into too much depth.

I think the second paragraph could be broken into another section. It could be introduced as the history of the shoe or how it revolutionized the brand/sport.

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?

Content evaluation
Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. The content added involves the shoes shift in branding/marketing and more recent collaborations. I would love to see more content about the shoes statistics like the amount sold (if possible), retail pricing by the years, the production process, the different types of material used, and/or the reason they switched to a skateboarding shoe.

This link might help- https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/history-of-nike-blazer

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral. There are no biased views and the viewpoints are equally presented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article does a great job of using sources and references. There are links whenever possible and the content is properly cited. All links are working and they all reflect on the topic.

It might help to add external links like websites to buy them, or a website that provides an archive of the most popular color way/collabs.

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
Yes, the content is well-written and easily read. The author does a great job of breaking information into sections so it's easy to follow along.

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
The article would drastically improve with more images. The pictures should provide all angles of the shoes, close up of its unique features and pictures of collaborations in its respective section.

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 article does meet the notability requirements as it does include a few independent sources. The article does have section headings and it is related to the subject. The content does include article links to other Wikipedia pages.

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
Although it appears this article is not finished yet, it does have a lot of potential for higher rating. The author does a great job of capturing the topic and needs minor changes to strengthen the article.