User:Ddpit22/Saltine Warrior/Jayahpatell Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ddpit22/Saltine Warrior:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * NA

Evaluate the drafted changes
{| class="wikitable"

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 introductory sentence is vague and doesn’t layout the rest of the article’s information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I feel like there could be more detail added here
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it’s somewhat vague

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?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it remains extremely factual
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No it just lays out what the controversy is
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No it includes both sides of the controversy
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content remains neutral and provides both sides of the argument

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content has relevant secondary sources
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most are from 2024
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Most of the articles are written by Syracuse University themselves
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No there’s not much information on this
 * 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?
 * Yes, the content was straightforward
 * 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 the content is organized and the placement of information makes sense

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?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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?
 * I think it could have included more diverse sources
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content improved the quality of the article because it gave context as to why certain things are the way that they are.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the strengths would be that it’s well organized by laying out the history of the mascot.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It could dive deeper into non-Syracuse related sources
 * }