User:Diego CD/Women's National Basketball Association/Ars222 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?
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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they 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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Diego's group

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Diego CD/Women's National Basketball Association
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Women's National Basketball Association

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Overall, my first impression of the article is that there is a good lead-in. The article starts with an introductory sentence that clearly describes with the section will be about. Additionally, while the topic of the wage difference is perhaps hinted at in the current version of the article on the WNBA, this group did an effective job of including information that was not present in the article. Additionally, the article is organized into sections, with introductory sentences included in each.

The content is relevant to the topic and appropriately addresses the equity gap between the WNBA and the NBA. However, I did notice one discrepancy: the article I reviewed said "the WNBA brought in $25 million from ESPN and the NBA bringing in $930 million from ESPN and TNT" and later on, said that "in 2019 is was reported that the revenue the WNBA brought in was $102 million." I believe there is just a simple error of not including the date for which the NBA brought in $25 million, because the rest of the information provided in the article asserts that the WNMA makes a lot more now.

The added content is neutral and no claims are biased. There are no attempts to persuade the reader towards any particular viewpoint. Additionally, it appears that there are a variety of reliable sources used. The sources are current and come from a variety of different places. However, there are no images of media included, which I believe may be a helpful addition to the article in order to further enhance the data and information provided.

Finally, I believe this article is already well on its way to being a success. Good information is already provided and is done so in a neutral, non-biased manner.