User:Zhenhao zhu/Ball possession/Aldooley 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) Zhenhao zhu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Ball possession

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?yes the article has a clear starting point that describes what will be talked about
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? there are no main sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No all is mentioned
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I cannot tell where the lead starts and end

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? all content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? the content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No but could expand and had more
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? the article mentions the top teams

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? the article seems to have a slightly biased opinion towards teams and players
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes there are claims towards teams and players that could be considered slightly biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think the article is mainly netural but points out some of the better teams

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? there are only two sources on the article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? there is only one section
 * Are the sources current? the sources are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? there are only two sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the links work

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?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?