User:Hmk0110/Hook grip/Benjamin Charles Baird Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Hmk0110
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Hmk0110/Hook grip

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, the lead is concise and provides a good overview of what the reader can expect upon reading further

Lead evaluation
The lead is well written and remains concise

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?
 * No

Content evaluation
Content is solid and relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, equally discusses advantages and disadvantages

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone remains neutral while being informative

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, all sources are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources appear to be unbiased

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
Good organization

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

Images and media evaluation
Could benefit to have images present. Of course as long as they are properly cited and the proper measures are taken with regards to copyright.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Provide useful insight on the use of the hook grip for lifting weights
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Overall the content looks great! perhaps some images may help readers understand a little more clearly. I also think a history section might be a good addition to this article.

Overall evaluation
Overall this article appears to be headed in a great direction. With the addition of maybe a few more sections (history, used in competition, etc.) it will continue to look even better.