User:Jarends1013/List of Russian monarchs/Austinh291 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)
 * Jarends1013
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * College esports in the United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, he has not updated it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead is clear and concise
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does say that there are several collegiate esports competitions but it fails to mention the names of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead presents information on the overall history of collegiate esports doesn't go into further detail in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and provides information on what esports is that could be expanded upon.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant to the topic but it is very unorganized, acting as more of a list than a full fledged article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The article does have information up to 2019 and an updated teams list.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It is missing probably hundreds of collegiate leagues in the United States, it only has four currently so that makes sense. It is also missing the "meat and potatoes" of the article: the history of the topic, what it means to be a collegiate esports player, and various other topics relevant to collegiate esports in the United States (maybe legal issues).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is generally unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Still generally unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is no view point from people who don't want esports in college but I don't know if there are any good sources on that.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Still generally unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Content is not backed by sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * He didn't have any sources but the sources in the article are mainly obtained by the organizations they are writing about, which is generally a bad practice, or by news articles which isn't a very reliable source of information. One is just a LinkedIn account which is probably not great.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Still no added sources but the others are up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do go to the correct sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some minor grammar mistakes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is poorly organized, acting as more of a list than a Wikipedia article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (didn't add images)


 * 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?

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?
 * It has improved the article by adding one of many collegiate esports organizations that are missing and updating one of the previously written sections.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is written from an unbiased point of view by just stating the facts.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be improved by finding sources and by making reorganizing the entire Wikipedia entry into an article instead of a list if it intends on being so.

Overall evaluation
The original article's organization makes it hard to add to it besides adding in more organizations and updating old ones. What you have added is good but you should challenge yourself to format it into a more cohesive article.