User:Jayhy15/Abdominal exercise/808TR777 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? (Jayhy15)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Abdominal exercise

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
The lead appeared to be updated with new content, also including an introductory sentence with a clear and concise desciption of the article. It also includes a brief description of the article's major sections, and relevant information on the article. The lead had a great concise start on 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Some of the articles content seemed to be relevant to the article, but not all were up-to-date. The content added held relevant information to the topic, with nothing out of place. The article did not deal with any equity gaps, and did not seem to underrepresent any of the topics.

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 added was neutral, and had no biased claims. There did not seem to be any viewpoints that were underrepresented nor overrepresented, and there were no signs of attemps of persuading the readers.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content has reliable secondary sources, with information on the topic that is being informed. The some of the sources are not as current as the others, with some dating back a couple of years or more. The sources also show that they were written by a diverse spectrum of authors, and did not seem to have any marginalized individuals. The links provided do function properly.

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
The article seems to be well written, and simple to understand. I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors throughout the article. The article is very well organzied, providing different sections for information on the topic.

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?

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
Overall, the article has a pretty strong structure. Though more citations do need to be added, just as the article shows in most sections. Also, there could be a little more added to the '' Types" section; breaking down the different types of routines that can be used. The article has a lot of general information on the process of Abdomial Exercises, but, there can still be a bit more added for what routines target the Abdominal the most.