User:Chuma45/2019 SEC Championship Game/Ppatel2020 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? (ppatel20 reviewing chuma45)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 2019 SEC Championship Game

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The 2018 SEC Championship Game featured East Division champion Georgia against West Division champion Alabama in a rematch of the 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article sections are in order below.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No it is a neutral tone and informs the audience what the article is about.

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? The content is related to the article and does not take away from it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, they are just stating facts.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is an image in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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? I think there can be more information, but overall it is a good article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The student has a lot of good material and sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more information on the material.

Overall evaluation
Good article and sources.