User:AnaHelge/Gymshark/Wikistudent2002 Peer Review

Lead

Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added
The lead does include a good introductory sentence, but it can be improved to add more about what the article is about
The lead doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections
The lead doesn't present information that is not presented in the article
The lead is concise and easy to read
- I didn't realize we had to add so much to the lead either :)

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic
I like how the content added is so unique to Gymshark
The content appears to be up to date, it's good that you included such recent news
The article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps because it does address topic topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, with the commitment to diversity section

Tone and Balance

The content added appears to be neutral
No claims appear heavily biased
There is no negative reviews or mention of competitors of the Gymshark, which could make it more balanced
The content added doesn't seem to appear to be intended to persuade

Sources and References

The new content all appears to be backed up by sources
Links work
Sources are current
Sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors
May be better sources available, especially about competitors or negative things about the brand

Organization

The content added is well written, it's concise, easy to read, and clear
The break down of the content could be reorganized to flow more from start to finish, such as more paragraph breaks or bullets

Images and Media

There is one picture of Gymshark headquarters and the Gymshark logo (IDK if this counts as a picture)
A picture would be nice of Gymshark products or community involvement
The image adheres to copyright regulations
The image is laid out in an appealing way

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?

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)