User:AaronAspelund/Badminton in the United States/Madsngo Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- AaronAspelund
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, the lead opens up a brief history of the introduction to Badmitten as a whole and mentions influences of the sport to the United States.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the lead mentions celebrates and influencers to Badminton. The later sub articles mention a brief history of those people and their influences and associations to the sport.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Not precisely, the lead mentions these things, but does not clearly state that the following information will be available. It could mention and link all sections of the article a little further.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, the article mentions a few celebrities but does not mention them all in the information following.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is concise.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, it is all new information/sources ranging from 2019-2020.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is content missing, yes. But overall, has all the information needed that elevated the quality of the article as opposed to the previous article.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, it is neutral in tone but should give off a more "academic" tone.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
- 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?
- No, all content is generalized.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, all information is reliable. There is only one source that was bias toward an opinion.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, they give concrete information.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes, they are ranging from 2019 to 2020.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, all the links work.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, but I would fix then formatting a little bit.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I have seen so far, more just the tone rather than grammar and spelling.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, but more information categorized may let it be easier on the eyes.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, the article provided more images than the actual article (that didn't haven any).
- Are images well-captioned?
- Yes.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes,
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, but could be a little larger.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
- Yes.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- The sources/references listed are concrete information. This article should show concrete information and all references show that.
- 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?
- Yes.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes.
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, way more complete than the actual article.The current article has a few sentences.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Everything is a strength to the article. The previous article mentioned very generic information.,
- How can the content added be improved?
- Keep adding more information to the article, other than that, it has been improved significantly that it looks more like an actual article.