User:GreysonAE/Basketball positions/Itbag 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? GreysonAE
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Basketball positions

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
There is no lead present on this article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All the content is relevant, and it seems to be up to date (but these positions in the sport haven't necessarily changed for a while). The article has information on all five positions, so not too much missing content. But, there could potentially be a subsection of noteworthy players for each position, current and past superstars (Stephen Curry as PG, Lebron James as PF, etc.)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does do a good job of balancing all of the information on each position, but does seem to have a lax or slightly informal tone overall. But, it does a good job of outlining the nuances of each role, as well as how each of them are important to a team's lineup.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I am a bit skeptical of the sources, I know one of the external links leads to 'howstuffworks.com' and there seem to be references used that are of similar calibur. I think it might be worth looking into slightly more scholarly sources, although it seems to provide accurate information (from what I have seen/know about basketball personally, which isn't that much).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added 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?

Organization evaluation
Content is very well-organized, very simple format and the each position is listed in numerical order (PG known as the 1, Center known as the 5). Each section generally has the same format, talking about their role, their skill set, and their general size. I did not spot any grammatical errors.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The image is sufficient in showing the reader the general location of each position on the floor during the game. However, the graphic seems to be a little low-quality. It does help with envisioning the setup, though.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article has definitely improved and there is a good amount of detail in each section, as well as a decent balance between all five. Again, I think it might help for people to be given examples of notable current/past players of each position, in order to relate that person's play style with the position that they play. Also, you could go into detail of how some players potentially changed their position over the years, such as how Stephen Curry influenced his position by being such a good long-range shooter.