User:Dcb1986/Macon Bacon/Markerman76 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? Dcb1986
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Macon Bacon

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. However there is only a lead and no other content in the body.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It list the team and the league they play in.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, because the sections have not be added yet.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, because there is no article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and is a great example of a lead.

Lead evaluation

The lead is about perfect.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? There is no content other than an info box. The info box is relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date? There is not content. The info box is not up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A lot of content missing. Almost the whole article.

Content evaluation

Content needs to be added.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? There is no content to evaluate.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no content to evaluate.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The whole article is underrepresented. Tell us about the owner, about how they are a collegiate wooden bat league instead of just a collegiate league. Tell about past records, achievements, and players.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There is no content to evaluate.

Tone and balance evaluation

There is no content to evaluate.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is no content to evaluate. However, the three sources are reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough however one reference is technically an external link and is also listed as an external link. This redundant and should be edited.
• Are the sources current? The sources are current.
• Check a few links. Do they work? All work. One is redundant.

Sources and references evaluation

The whole reference section needs work. Clear up redundant reference/external link and find additional sources.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is no content to evaluate.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is no content to evaluate. I did not notice any in the lead or info box. However there is an information error in the info box. The Bacon are now in the South Division and it lists them as in being in the West.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The lead is good but there is no other content to evaluate. Info box is nicely organized though.

Organization evaluation

There is no main organization to evaluate. Basically a one paragraph article at this point.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but not enough.
• Are images well-captioned? The one image is of the team logo and it is used as profile picture, so there is no caption. It sits in an info box.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It falls under (WP:NFCC#4)
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. However, there should be images of people playing baseball.

Images and media evaluation

The one image of the logo is great. However this article is image and media famished.

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? The content that is there: lead, info box, one logo picture and 2 links is great! However, the article is unfinished and is only roughly 10 % done.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The lead and info box.
• How can the content added be improved? The content body, section headers and more photos need to be added.

Overall evaluation

Nice lead but where's the rest? This article should still be in draft status.