User:Allysonpark/Sociology of sport/Davidickes 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? (Allysonpark)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Allysonpark/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does it recaps the topic very well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it is new information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No it is perfectly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes in a way, emotion part of sociology and it talks about sports.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the info is pretty up to date with newer info.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? She could have included some real sport examples.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the info is pretty unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No all points are expressed very well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is no lead to that situation.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the content is backed up with good source info.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources were very good pick.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are very recent sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yea its pretty easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? N o the grammar is correct
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is only one main section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?-no
 * 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 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? Yes, she added an important topic in the overall topic of sociology of sport.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More quality topics to broaden the info of her article.
 * How can the content added be improved? More pictures, More organization