User:Dkell22/Climbing gym/SparksCap95 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Dkell22

Link to draft you're reviewing

Climbing gym

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Climbing gym

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly and briefly describes the article's topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead is currently missing a brief description of the article's major sections (particularly it is lacking any mention of the Paraclimbing section).
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead is concise and easy to understand.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The Paraclimbing topic is relevant to the overall climbing gym subject.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content added is up-to-date, with references from as current as 2023.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is no content that is missing or 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?
  • The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as it describes how climbing gyms can be adapted for those with disabilities.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the content added is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • While there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, the article does touch on the underrepresented population of climbers with disabilities.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the read in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Most of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The second paragraph in the section though could benefit from citations.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • Yes, the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the sources are current, with the most recent being from 2023.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • It is undetermined who the authors are, so it is unclear whether or not there is a diverse spectrum.
• 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.)
  • The article should suffice.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, the links do appear to work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content is well-written and easy to read. Great work!
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • The content does not appear to 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?
  • The content is well-organized and broken into key sections (particular does this well in the paraclimbing section).

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • The article might benefit from images in the Paraclimbing section , but other that that, not really.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes, the images that do exist are well-captioned.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • The images do appear to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict result.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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 added improved the overall article quality by bringing a whole new lens to the subject matter and including more sources.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Strengths include the organization (it was very smart to break it down by categories) and clarity of the writing.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The main way that the content added could be improved is by adding sources to the second paragraph of the new section, and perhaps a picture as well. Otherwise, amazing job!