Jump to content

User:Hmk0110/Hook grip/Benjamin Charles Baird Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.