User talk:Lalevi/Seahawks Dancers/Toria20 Peer Review

Here's the peer-review I've finished for you! I've made comments about some suggestions I've had and about parts that I think you done well!

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There's no new content added but it doesn't seem like that's necessarily needed. 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? The lead is well-done!

Lead evaluation 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? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? In terms of content, I feel like it would be helpful to add more information/a section that provides more details on what else Seahawks Dancers do, besides being on the field. I think this would also be good to add annual or notable events, trips, and providing who they are partnered with during these events.

Content evaluation 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? The content doesn't seem bias! The auditions section is a bit underrepresented- maybe consider adding in how dancers prepare for auditions, what is the routines like for auditions, who are typically the judges, etc!

Tone and balance evaluation 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? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work? For your references, they're merely links, which looks significantly different from most references/bibliography pages I typically see (on top of my head- I'm not sure what are the guidelines/format for this section but I would do a double-check on this!).

Sources and references evaluation 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? The content is pretty well-organized!

Organization evaluation 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? I can't tell whether you were the one who added images or not but the images itself is appealing but they have no captions yet.

Images and media evaluation 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? New Article Evaluation 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, the content and organization so far is great! Especially the sections you added, it seems almost necessary for the completion of the page. I made a few suggestions above about content that could potentially be added and minor parts that could be improved! Either way, it still seems like it's coming together well.

Overall evaluation