User:Jeremyrios88/Gender pay gap in sports/Emilycnangle 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? Jeremyrios88
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_pay_gap_in_sports&oldid=917438327

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, he did not add new content.
 * 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? No, it only discusses the idea of gender pay gap.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but almost too concise. There are no descriptions of article sections.

Lead evaluation
The lead is too concise and lacks many of the qualities of a good lead. There are no descriptions of article sections and only information about Serena Williams and a definition of pay gap. The lead can be improved.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing about the impacts of the gender pay gap.

Content evaluation
Jeremyrios88 did not add new content to the article. The content is up to date but there is content missing that would further the understanding of the gender pay gap.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The claims in the article seem to be biased towards female athletes.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints of female athletes are underepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
There was no content added but the claims already present in the article are skewed in favor male athletes. The viewpoints of female athletes are underrepresented and the content attempts to make the reader doubt the presence of a gender pay gap.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most content is backed by secondary sources.
 * 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? The links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are current and thorough. 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? No, Jeremy fixed the grammar errors that were in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of 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
Jeremyrios88 fixed the article's grammar mistakes correctly. The article itself though, has a few issues. The writing does not seem to be in a NPOV and most claims are sourced from news articles and blog links. The links do work but the content can be improved by adding more information to most of the categories.