User:Lyndiems/2016 NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championship/Nat2026 Peer Review

ItGeneral info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lyndiems


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lyndiems/2016_NCAA_Women%27s_Gymnastics_Championship?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2016 NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championship

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?


 * The lead of this article has been updated to include additional information about more recent years in terms of where the championships have been held.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * The Lead does not contain an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic. The first sentence immediately tells me where they were held and when, but otherwise provides no information on what the NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championships actually is and speaking as an outsider, it would be very helpful to have an introductory sentence. I do not even know what NCAA stands for.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, although I still felt the article was easy to navigate. It would be helpful if a brief outline was provided as well as what exactly the sections are considering I do not know anything about this topic.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?


 * Yes, the majority of the lead appears to provide a broad overview of of when and where the championship is held as well as the significance of the state it was held in and if it has been held at Fort Worth in more recent years.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * I think the lead is concise in a very nice and organized way. It would be nice if the lead as a little more detailed by describing what exactly this is and some background information on it.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * Yes, I felt the content added was very relevant. The majority of the edits were made to the Regional Championships section and provided unbiased interpretation of what the scores mean for each regional event.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * All of the content that was added appears to belong in the article and provides additional description for each regional event which helps me better interpret what exactly happened at each event. With an article that is a stub, there will always be missing content and more to say, so I would encourage adding more definitions for someone such as myself that knows nothing about this and if I was asked to describe all of it with this resource, I would not be successful.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?


 * Yes! Everything added appears to be very neutral and all great additions to help me better understand the events from each regional. I cannot sense any bias or favorable comments and all additions merely addressed things that happened. The content added does not appear to persuade the reader and I felt like I was simply reading summaries of scores and qualifications.

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * The two main sources used to pull from were NCAA News and ncaa.com. All of the information appears to be reliable and all statements are appropriately backed up, other than a few sentences with no citation. This is likely just because it is the same citation as the previous sentence and the author wanted to avoid the redundancy.

Are the sources thorough?


 * Yes! They are both excellent sources and appear the be the best way to find accurate information on the 2016 NCAA championships. I would also choose from these sources for accurate information.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''


 * Every single link the editor added to the article work and I am able to access them to see what exactly the source contains. No dead links. (This does not include links used within the original article).

Organization
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?
 * Yes, the content added is concise, clear, and easy for me to read and interpret. I am unsure of if the bulleted points are the best way to incorporate the information, but the points themselves were extremely helpful.


 * The sentence structure in the first paragraph of regional championships is not perfect, but there are no spelling errors.

Is the content added well organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * Yes, the content appears to be well organized under each type of regional and I can easily navigate to them based on the header changes.

Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * The article includes one image that shows the 2016 NCAA Regional locations. It would be helpful if there were more images included but not necessary for understanding.

Are images well captioned?


 * Yes, although I would change it to "2016 NCAA Women's Gymnastics Regional Locations" to add clarity.

Overall Impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. is the article more complete?


 * Yes, the article is more complete in that further information has been added, although I still think there is work to be done in order to help the general public get an overview of the NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championships. At a glance, I would not be able to get a core grasp of what exactly the Regional Championships are and it would help me if there was an overview provided. the strengths of the content added help me further interpret the scores from each regional championship. The content added can be improved by further organizing and integrating it into the present information already edited in previously. Overall, excellent edits have been made to take steps toward completion!

-Natalie