User:Hmk0110/Hook grip/Brynlangrock Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Hmk01
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hmk0110/Hook grip

Lead

=== Guiding questions:

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the introductory sentence in the lead is very concise and covers the article's topic well.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead does not go over the article's major sections, but just explains the mechanics of the grip itself.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The second part of the lead goes over information not present in the article, and might be better suited in the advantages section.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise for the most part but could benefit from moving some of the information into the advantages section. ===

Content

=== Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most of the sources cited are from the last 5 years
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the section on pain reduction could be removed unless there's a way to connect that section specifically to this type of grip, because it just seems like that's applicable to any weight lifting practices involving your hands.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No ===

Tone and Balance

=== 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 ===

Sources and References

=== 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? Yes
• 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?
  • The docstoc link does not work ===

Organization

=== Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I would say everything is fairly easy to read and understand with the exception of the second paragraph in the lead, which is confusing.
• 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 ===

Images and Media

=== 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? No
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No ===

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? ===

Overall impressions

=== Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the content of the article has been improved.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is backed by more sources than the original article, and has begun to improve the lead portion.
• How can the content added be improved? The lead can be improved by being more clear and concise. ===