User:Eddie943586/Basketball in China/Ajtantico 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Eddie943586
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Eddie943586/Basketball in China

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead is more developed with information compared to the live version on Wikipedia
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It is introduced with a paragraph about history, maybe it was meant to be moved somewhere else
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does have a list of what sections will be covered
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead might need a formatting change, it is pretty concise but maybe it is glitching on my computer

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is very relevant. It adds good information to the article
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, there is some very recent information. Maybe more about players could be added
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The section about arenas is currently empty

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I think so. There is mention of a conflict between the NBA and China's basketball market, but it is not biased in presentation.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe, add more about other famous basketball players, there are a couple but maybe it would be biased if there are not more included
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don't see that many footnotes, maybe farther along in editing you should add more about Adam Silver.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Perhaps there could be more sources
 * Are the sources current? Most of them are
 * 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? It is easy to understand
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is 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? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I am not sure if it is copyrighted
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is more complete and fleshed out now
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Expands on the history and popularity of the sport
 * How can the content added be improved? Some revisions for grammar

Overall evaluation
Stub -> B article