User:Isaiahskeete/Soccer/TylerSukovski 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? (provide username) - Isaiah Skeete
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Association football

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 has been no updates by the user as of yet

- the lead has clear introduction and describes what the article is about, also has description of different aspects within the topic

- The lead is pretty concise and gives a descriptive outline of the topic at hand

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
- There has not been any content added as of yet

- the content that is there is currently up to date

- there could be some more stuff added depending how in depth they would like to take this topic

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 Content is neutral and well balanced throughout

- there are no claims they are just stating the obvious of the sport itself

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
- The content provided is all referenced and backed up

- the sources are all fairly current and they represent the literature on the topic well

- the links work

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\
- it is an easy read and readers are able to follow clearly

- the content produced is pretty much all correct and without spelling errors

- it can be organized better, they should try to break it down into more specified topics

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 images used don't really go hand in hand with what is begin talked about in the article but that is easy to fix

- the images are well captioned and adhere to copy right laws and regulations

- the visuals are not really appealing in the sense they can be put into better locations where it would make sense to have them

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 student is able to make the quality of this article more specific and overall better if they add some new sections and take a few out or group them together as it dosent really depict the whole "story" of what it should be telling us

- The strength of this article are that all sections and information within the article provide enough insight for individuals to get a clear gasp on the game, but some content that could be potentially added would be more historical aspects and sections on more than the physical aspects but the global side of how far the game has expanded and stuff like that