User:Benjamin Charles Baird/Off-speed pitch/Kathylamb7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Benjamin Charles Baird
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Benjamin Charles Baird/Off-speed pitch

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, but new sections are added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Pretty concise, gives an overall idea of what an off-speed pitch is to someone who isn't familiar with baseball

Lead evaluation
Overall solid, if there was a historical aspect, like when the name was coined, that would be pretty solid to add

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Possibly a historical section (if applicable), notable players who may be "known" for it, videos of it (if it adheres to copyright)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Content evaluation
Overall solid, could add some information but it might not be available

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * 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
Solid.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Slider reference--may be seen as biased, another resource might be better
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Somewhat, 2 sources by Steven Ellis--may be seen as biased
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Overall solid, sources might be replaced by other editors

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Solid

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * More detail on overarching categories of an off-speed pitch
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Potentially finding alternative sources, adding media (if possible)

Overall evaluation
Really great contributions! I know little-to-nothing about baseball and I feel like everything was clear. It might help to have visual references to support the depth of detail you provide but great additions so far :)