User:Zimmerr35/Sport Psychology/Miami2024 Peer Review

General info
Zimmerr35
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Zimmerr35/Sport Psychology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Sport psychology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Using an existing article.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article you plan use to pull from does seem relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The article is 3 years old. I am not intimately familiar with this topic, I know some medical areas are rapidly evolving and some are more stagnate. This seems like it is new enough to be relevant in this topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The reference you plan to add appears to provide good information which would be helpful to build on this article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not appear to.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No content has been added yet.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The current viewpoint is underrepresented. The proposed information would help adding to this.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Reference material is provided which will be a good secondary source for the material when the updated content is created.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them?
 * The source provided appears to be a good source for the paragraph to be updated.
 * Are the sources current?
 * As mentioned above the article is 3 years old. I am not intimately familiar with this topic, I know some medical areas are rapidly evolving and some are more stagnate. This seems like it is new enough to be relevant in this topic.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * One source is provided which is written by three authors. The authors seem diverse within the piece. Perhaps finding a few other articles to substantiate the information in this research may be beneficial.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * This is a peer-reviewed article.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No additional information has been written for this article yet.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No additional information has been written for this article yet.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved?
 * No additional information has been written for this article yet. I do feel the identified resource can help to create a stronger article for Wikipedia.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The source provide will assist in adding more context to the subject and a stronger understanding of the topic.