Peer review
editGeneral info
edit- Review of Lalevi
- User:Lalevi/Seahawks Dancers
Lead
edit- I think the lead provides a good overview of the topic, but does not necessarily provide descriptions of the major topics. I think it could be updated to reflect the team's name change, as it still refers to them as Sea Gals. The information about the Sea Gals Show Group is not referred to in the rest of the article, and it is unclear in the article if they still exist today or were dissolved when the team rebranded. The lead could be updated to reflect the rest of the article.
Content
edit- The content is very up to date, especially after recent edits. If you are looking to add more, I think a more thorough history section would be a good addition. Some of the original content lacks sourcing, which need citations or changing.
Tone and Balance:
edit- The recent updates to the article appear to be very neutral. I think the second sentence of the article that describes the Sea Gals as more intensely trained than other teams could be viewed as preferential towards the team. I would suggest adding source that backs up this claim, expanding more on the intensity of training, or remove the idea that they train the most. Despite this I don't think the content of the article attempts to persuade the reader.
Sources and References
editGuiding questions:
- A lot of the information comes from the dance team's webpage which is likely reliable for general information and updated frequently. Wikipedia suggests avoiding linking to social media sites, such as Facebook. However, I think your reference to their announcement is relevant.
Organization
editGuiding questions:
- Your added content is well written. Informational, yet concise with no grammatical errors I can spot.
Images and Media
edit- The current image provided in the article is from 2014. While the image is high quality, I think if it is possible to find a non copyright image of the co-ed squad, it would be beneficial. The caption is good!
Overall impressions
editGuiding questions:
- Overall, I think the article has improved a great amount already. I think the main issues can be found in the original content, but your work looks great.