User:Dkell22/Climbing gym/SparksCap95 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Dkell22


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Climbing gym
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Climbing gym
 * Climbing gym

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly and briefly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead is currently missing a brief description of the article's major sections (particularly it is lacking any mention of the Paraclimbing section).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and easy to understand.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The Paraclimbing topic is relevant to the overall climbing gym subject.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up-to-date, with references from as current as 2023.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that is missing or does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as it describes how climbing gyms can be adapted for those with disabilities.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * While there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, the article does touch on the underrepresented population of climbers with disabilities.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the read in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The second paragraph in the section though could benefit from citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current, with the most recent being from 2023.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It is undetermined who the authors are, so it is unclear whether or not there is a diverse spectrum.
 * 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.)
 * The article should suffice.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links do appear to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is well-written and easy to read. Great work!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content does not appear to 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?
 * The content is well-organized and broken into key sections (particular does this well in the paraclimbing section).

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article might benefit from images in the Paraclimbing section, but other that that, not really.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images that do exist are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images do appear to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict result.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added improved the overall article quality by bringing a whole new lens to the subject matter and including more sources.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Strengths include the organization (it was very smart to break it down by categories) and clarity of the writing.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The main way that the content added could be improved is by adding sources to the second paragraph of the new section, and perhaps a picture as well. Otherwise, amazing job!