User:Hmk0110/Hook grip/Benjamin Charles Baird Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Hmk0110
- 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
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Yes, the lead is concise and provides a good overview of what the reader can expect upon reading further
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is well written and remains concise
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No
Content evaluation
[edit]Content is solid and relevant.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- 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, equally discusses advantages and disadvantages
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Tone remains neutral while being informative
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- For the most part, all sources are current
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Sources appear to be unbiased
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]Good organization
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Could benefit to have images present. Of course as long as they are properly cited and the proper measures are taken with regards to copyright.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Provide useful insight on the use of the hook grip for lifting weights
- How can the content added be improved?
- Overall the content looks great! perhaps some images may help readers understand a little more clearly. I also think a history section might be a good addition to this article.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall this article appears to be headed in a great direction. With the addition of maybe a few more sections (history, used in competition, etc.) it will continue to look even better.