User:Ddpit22/Saltine Warrior/Alliegeller Peer Review

General info
Ddpit22, ShaynaLakin
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Syracuse Orange
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it accurately and concisely explains their topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really, they could probably elongate their lead a bit more
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, their lead stays on topic
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Their lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I love how they did a deeper dive into all of the sports held by the Syracuse Orange
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, they really captured everything. They could have added a little more about softball, but I don’t blame them if softball was covered less in the media.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does cover historic representation of the Syracuse Orange, but doesn’t really get into any equity gaps

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is very neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I think their viewpoints accurately reflect preexisting media coverage of the Syracuse Orange
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it doesn’t

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, their article is really well sourced.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, it did.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They have a good mix of modern sources and historical sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they have a ton of links and they work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I really enjoyed reading this! I thought the writing quality was great and easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it was well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Absolutely, it also made it more fun to read.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, and they are directly next to whatever section they’re illustrating.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they’re the perfect size and easy to look at.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * They have close to 30 sources, which is impressive and insinuates accuracy and proper research.
 * 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?
 * It definitely does, it looks like a legitimate wikipedia page
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, it does.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I feel like this article can teach someone from start to finish about the Syracuse Orange.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Some strengths would be citing successful athletes and coaches, as well at the use of pictures. Coverage on football and basketball also really bulked up this article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I feel like a deeper dive on certain sports like Softball and Women's Ice Hockey could really round this article out.