User:KPP2020UPRC/Gym/Marrayaco Peer Review

Peer review
The information added is good; clear and easy to read. It has overall improved the quality of the article and is now more complete. I found some grammatical and spelling errors. In some parts, it is trying to convince the reader to do physical activities, which makes it not sound neutral. Also, at the beginning when it says '' Exercising in a gym can benefit a person no matter the age, height or sexuality. '' the part I underlined (Exercising in a gym) I think should not be specified for gyms, even if the topic is about Gyms. Because exercising anywhere it still can benefit a person no matter their age, height, or sexuality and produces the same benefits to people. The sentences '' Mental health is a priority.  and  Other than exercising to physically change, taking care of your mental health is the most important thing a person should focus on. '' are overrepresented and repetitive on the topic of mental health. I would not use the word  your  on the second sentence I marked, because as I mentioned before, it does not sound neutral and following the rules for editing on Wikipedia, that specific word should not be used. In the sentence '' There are different ways that exercising can help a person psychologically. '' I recommend you changing There for 'These' and adding a colon at the end. The next part that says  These are:  I would delete it, so the sentence before would replace it. In the final part on '' These are five examples of ways that exercising can benefit a person on a psychological side.  It is being repetitive to the sentence  There are different ways that exercising can help a person psychologically. '' I recommend deleting it or combine them into one only sentence. And on '' Each one of these are important, taking good care of them is essential. '' is not neutral either, is an opinion, and it also departs from the main topic, Gym. I would delete this final sentence.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): KPP2020UPRC, https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/KPP2020UPRC
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KPP2020UPRC/Gym

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?