User:SeaCalChiSperky/Major League Baseball blackout policy/Javiruiz82 Peer Review

NOTE FROM COURSE INSTRUCTOR: I don't have anything to add to this thorough review. I don't know enough about the policy but it does seem most of the most recent highlights are present and that there are sources provided. I also agree that it is hard to see the equity angle to this article/issue, except in terms of who is cited. But one piece that does appear to be missing is more about how this particular arrangement came about - what is the history of the current blackout policies? - and are there any critiques that people have of this current (or the previous) policies. This seems especially important in terms of our discussions about commons vs. Anti-commons as there is an anti-trust element that evidently congress has ignored in discerning whether this policy is a violation. Some sources on these but not the only ones that could be relevant - I'm sure Connor has some others that might be useful that aren't in Law Review journals, but FYI.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/indilr49&div=33&id=&page=

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/shjsl3&div=7&id=&page=

Finally, in relation to both of the points above, it might be relevant to compare how baseball blackout policies to other policies govening the televised broadcast of other U.S. or global sports events.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SeaCalChiSperky


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SeaCalChiSperky/Major_League_Baseball_blackout_policy?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Major League Baseball blackout policy

Evaluate the drafted changes
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 C
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, as the info has been condensed and reformatted to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - the topic does seem to be explained simply and well done,
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - the lead does indeed seem to be descriptive in the right places.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, as much of the info is based on relevant information only found in recent years.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Much of the wording is well defined and simplified to make it easier to read

Content C
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? the content relates to the future of the policy and deals relating to it, so it is indeed relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - the content is as recent as 2022, so it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - no content seems to be missing to my understanding.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - as I do not know much about baseball, I am not informed enough to make that assumption, though i do believe that the topic based on the article size is glanced over.

Tone and Balance C
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - the content has remained neutral and unbiased as it explains solely what the baseball blackout policy is and info relating to that.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear to be heavily biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - To my knowledge, the points are equal and is edited to reflect that
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - the article does not, as it simply states an event that could cause blackout polices to cease and not persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - the info does seem to be reliable secondary sources
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - the article draft does indeed seem to be well sourced and reflective to what the sources say without any biases
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - the sources do give enough info and are provided
 * Are the sources current? - the sources are indeed current to my understanding.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - the sources seem to be written by mostly Caucasian writers to my understanding.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - Most of the more prevelant websites had already been added to the article's current page, so the new draft is as reflective to the newer sources and content provided.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do indeed work and lead to correct websites, though i did notice that this website's link did not work properly. https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57502391/mlb-espn-extend-television-contract/

Organization C
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - the article has been edited to reflect this by reformatting and condensing the info to be easier to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - no errors were spotted in the reading of this article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - the article is broken down to sections and so makes it very easy to understand and read.

Images and Media C
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - only images that were on the original article
 * Are images well-captioned? - the caption is concise and well caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - as to my knowledge, the image does adhere to that
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is laid out in an appealing way.

Overall impressions C
mmuching questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - overall i do believe so that the content added does improve the overall piece as the new info adds to the context of the article in question
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - It is substantial in adding context to the blackout policies and the potential for the policy to be considered outdated or removed.
 * How can the content added be improved? - I don't know much about Baseball, so I can't accurately say so as the topic is much of a mystery to me, though perhaps there's other relevant information relating to blackout policies?