User:Diego CD/Women's National Basketball Association/Ars222 Peer Review

General info
Diego's group
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Diego CD/Women's National Basketball Association
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Women's National Basketball Association

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Overall, my first impression of the article is that there is a good lead-in. The article starts with an introductory sentence that clearly describes with the section will be about. Additionally, while the topic of the wage difference is perhaps hinted at in the current version of the article on the WNBA, this group did an effective job of including information that was not present in the article. Additionally, the article is organized into sections, with introductory sentences included in each.

The content is relevant to the topic and appropriately addresses the equity gap between the WNBA and the NBA. However, I did notice one discrepancy: the article I reviewed said "the WNBA brought in $25 million from ESPN and the NBA bringing in $930 million from ESPN and TNT" and later on, said that "in 2019 is was reported that the revenue the WNBA brought in was $102 million." I believe there is just a simple error of not including the date for which the NBA brought in $25 million, because the rest of the information provided in the article asserts that the WNMA makes a lot more now.

The added content is neutral and no claims are biased. There are no attempts to persuade the reader towards any particular viewpoint. Additionally, it appears that there are a variety of reliable sources used. The sources are current and come from a variety of different places. However, there are no images of media included, which I believe may be a helpful addition to the article in order to further enhance the data and information provided.

Finally, I believe this article is already well on its way to being a success. Good information is already provided and is done so in a neutral, non-biased manner.