User:Mikeefarrar/Sport communication/Dillondanner7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Michael Farrar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikeefarrar/Sport_communication?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sport communication

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead that Mike has edited is much better in several senses. First, he focused on improper grammar and got rid of useless words. This made it look more professional and well-written. He also did a very good job keeping a lot of what the lead already/originally had while also incorporating more of his information and getting rid of some of the unnecessary and off-topic points in the section. I also saw much more citations and references which gives this section a little more credibility. He also added citations for sentences in the lead article that were already there. Overall, he cleaned the lead section up very good. He made it shorter, thorough, and too the point which is all that is needed in a lead/introductory paragraph. He could have extended on some more of his ideas in the lead section to send a clearer message to the readers, but for the most part, it was just enough to introduce the article. The very first sentence did a very good job describing and outlining the topic at hand. However, the lead section did not provide a roadmap for what the rest of the article had in store. He could have added one last sentence at the end talking about the subtopics that he will be exploring.

He added some very good content. He explored 2 different sources and found a way to intertwine them into the article. Both sources were relevant and credible. One of which is a book while the other is an article/journal published by the American Psychological Association, which are both very reliable sources. The original published article seems very weak as it is not well-organized and looks like it has very little content. I think this is the perfect article to edit because there is very little information and Mike can add some good content to this article. There is simply not enough content for me to judge Mike's edits. Any sort of additional relevant and credible information would be a plus for this thin article.

Most of the content added was neutral. One sentence that said "In fact, some of the best opportunities in sport communication involve behind-the-scenes occupations." I feel like the word "best" may carry some bias. I think a good replacement sentence would be "In fact, much of sports communication involves...". This would be straightforward and unbiased. Under the subheading "Careers in Entertainment", it looked like the last sentence sort of wrapped everything up and formed into a conclusion. However, conclusions should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because it can be seen as persuasive. He could have also further extended on his last sentence. If he could find a source to reference, it could add a little more content and flavor to the "Careers in Entertainment" subtopic.

His content is well-organized, although I believe he could spend a little more time on improving his word use to make it sound more professional. He has two very good subtopics that definitely make the article stronger, more appealing, and more organized than the article that is up right now. I feel like he could also add one more subtopic called "Sports Journalism". I feel like sports journalism is an important subtopic/component of the overall sports communication. I am making edits on the article on sports journalism, and after reading the sports communications article, I see a very close correlation between the two.

The current article that Mike is editing only has one image in the article. The image almost seems out of context and the caption does not explain how it relates to the idea of sports communication at all. There is also no citation associated with the picture. I feel like this is definitely something Mike can add to the article. Several images with cited captions would add much more to the article, especially considering the fact that there is already very little information.

Overall, I believe that Mike has done a very good job editing the article. Since this is just a rough draft, I am sure that Mike plans to add more to make the article the best it could possibly be. With the article being very weak as it is, Mike has a tall order ahead of him to practically form a whole Wikipedia article on "Sport Communication".