User:Swong544/100 Thieves/VthompUWO Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Swong544
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 100 Thieves

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, however I don't think anything they have added would be necessary for it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it briefly describes exactly what 100 Thieves is in the broadest of terms possible.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It mentions every major video game the team has played which the article explains in the History section except for Fortnite: Battle Royale, which it says nothing of in the history section. Other than that, all the major points are touched upon.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The founding of the company is mentioned in the lead, while there's no information other than that anywhere else in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It probably leans more towards concise than overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The lead does a good overall job at introducing the team and what they've accomplished, however there is some information provided there that could be elaborated on in the actual article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added all seems to be correcting grammar issues on a major section of the content, which is relevant. However, doesn't feel incredibly significant of an addition.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it's been updated to the 2019/2020 season.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? None of the content seems out of place, however the history section's Counterstrike and Call of Duty information seems like it could be elaborated on.

Content evaluation
The information added seems relevant to the content provided, and is working towards a more complete sense of this article. However, there is definitely still plenty of patches where new information could be added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I'm not detecting any strong bias coming from the words added.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it doesn't feel overly biased towards any particular person.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I could tell in any way.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I cannot see what kind of opinion would be trying to be influenced with the new information provided.

Tone and balance evaluation
I believe the tone and balance is good, and feels like the neutral encyclopedia tone that one would expect from Wikipedia.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There was not any sources added to the new content provided by this user on the article - however, plenty of the content talked about definitely could use some sourcing.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources would do great to back up the claims made about the inner workings of the team, showing people where the information was sourced.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think all the sudden shifts in player rosters happening at once can feel a bit disorienting, but with careful reading it can be parsed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nothing that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it makes sense to break up these sections by year, as the history is best looked at chronologically in that sense.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized well, however can feel a bit clustered with all the information constantly being fired off in one paragraph.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The Team's logo is the only image included, which is helpful, however perhaps images of the team together at some points would be informative.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image does not have a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The information for the fair use of the logo image in question is included on the image's page, so yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It's being used in the typical way that an image is used as the primary Wikipedia image, so I'd say yes.

Images and media evaluation
The image being used right now feels useful and relevant, however more images could help make the page feel more informative and visually appealing.

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? Yes, the information feels relevant, as the history section was improved in its general quality and made more readable.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clarity of readability and a certain section of the history of the team in a specific game.
 * How can the content added be improved? More content can be added in order to really make the article feel like one the user is contributing significantly to, rather than just doing basic copy editing.

Overall evaluation
The content that has been added by the user feels like welcome fixing of issues the page had to get it closer to perfection. However, there is plenty of room where content can be added significantly in order to expand the page and truly add to it.