User:Jnasiri/Student Athlete Compensation/Sodonn12 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jnasiri


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jnasiri/Student Athlete Compensation
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Student Athlete Compensation

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would change around the lead sentence so that it mentions college athletes can be compensated.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No sections in the article yet but the lead seems to flow chronologically. I might split this up into different sections to highlight the different eras of student athlete compensation up to today where NIL deals are getting done with high schoolers.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Short and easy to read.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All information is relevant to the topic, but I would like to see the current state of student athlete compensation discussed more.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would just echo what I said earlier about the NIL deals. Thats a huge topic in the current student athlete space but it looks like your article is pointing in that direction. Adding more content on this would finish up the article well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All content is neutral and poses facts in a very easy to read way. There are no blatant biases present in the way the article is written. I was not persuaded on the issue one way or another. It was just a clear presentation of the history of student athlete compensation and that it is legal now.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe add a little more info about why people didn't want student athletes to be compensated in the first place then include the arguments made for student athletes in the Alston case.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all sources are present in this article. Great job included all the sources required here. I liked the inclusion of the Bill as well.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes they all appear to be correct.
 * Are the sources current? All sources are up to date with the current compensation ruling in Alston.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Some coverage on the NIL deals that students have been signing recently would be interesting as there are 17 year olds making millions of dollars before even stepping foot on campus for college. Including that with some sources on the future of student athlete compensation would be a good way to finish off the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All sources work correctly

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very easy to read, goes in a chronological order.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think I would change up the structure a little bit. Maybe include a lead that goes through the process of student athletes finally getting paid and then split it up into sections, pre-legalization, Aston case, then post legalization. I think there would be a lot of info you could add in the pre-legalization part, including the issues at USC where they were paying players with cars and homes in order to get around the rules. Also the Adidas situation at Louisville would be a good issue to explore pre-legalization.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Yes it is supported by solid sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Could use a few more sources to flesh out the topic but overall a good overview.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No links to other articles within as of yet.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What are the strengths of the content added? Great job providing a brief overview of the issue.
 * How can the content added be improved? I touched on it above but just small things like the structure and adding a couple different situations that were previously illegal and now are legal with students being able to profit off of their NIL.