User:Tjb143/Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame/GFrye 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? Tjb143
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GelrAgoEKkwojguwF84wTlmsPX8NnX3uCuW9FtmTkUE/edit

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?

Lead evaluation

 * Lead has been updated to give more specifics about induction and new members.
 * Yes, the lead includes a concise introductory sentence.
 * For the most part, the lead includes brief descriptions of the article's major sections. I think it might be good to also include a sentence about the controversy of the induction process.
 * No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The lead in concise given the overall length of the article.

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?

Content evaluation

 * The content adde is relevant, especially in the controversy section.
 * The content is up to date and includes statistics from this year.
 * To my knowledge, content does not seem to be missing.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Yes, content added is neutral.
 * No claims appear to be heavily biased.
 * Viewpoints are given equal weight.
 * Content added does not attempt to persuade the reader.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * All added content is cited. Sources appear reliable.
 * Yes, sources are thorough.
 * Yes, sources are very current and include up-to-date information.
 * Yes, the links work for me but I'm not sure if they will work for other users because they are the GU library proxy links.

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?

Organization evaluation

 * Content is largely well-written but I think some changes could be made to a couple of sentences to make them more clear. I left specific comments about this in the google doc.
 * Content has one grammatical error, but otherwise looks really good.
 * Added content is well organized and is included in the appropriate sections.

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?

Overall evaluation

 * Yes, content has improved the article.
 * The content added includes a lot more specific information relevant to the general topic.
 * Some of the content could be reworded to make it more clear.