User:Darbyyself/Sandlot Ball/Haley McDaniel 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

 * Darbyyself
 * User:Darbyyself/Sandlot Ball

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 lead paragraph clearly defines what the topic is, but information on the date and location of its origin could be included so it would hint at what else is included in the rest of the article. I would also suggest reworking the first two sentences to make one compound sentence. "follows the basic rules and procedures of baseball, though it is often less structured and organized"

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
The content is all relevant to the topic. In the 'Throughout The Years' section I might suggest adding possible information on the movie The Sandlot as it seems like it might be a relevant topic to the article if plans to add it were not already in the works.

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
I would be careful in the 'Function' section as there is a possibility that it may become biased.

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
There are a mix of old and current sources which I believe work well for the topic of the article. All of the links work and pertain to the subject.

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
Over all the content is well written and flows nicely, though I would suggest tweaking the 'History and Origins' section. I would suggest changing 'city of San Francisco' to just 'San Francisco' or 'San Francisco, California' (the California version in the first sentence especially). I would also suggest linking to San Franciso's Wikipedia article. Overall I would work on condensing the information a bit more to make more concise.

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
There are no images. I would suggest including a reference image or two of what these Sandlots look like if this wasn't in the works already.

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
I believe that the article does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It contains a short infobox and includes several relevant section heading.

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
Over all the article was very well down and includes a variety of relevant information. The only real advice I have that I have not stated already is to just remember not to look at the article as an essay with a word count, but more like an encyclopedia entry.