User:Cmccoy0913/Slump (sports)/AkDavis2003 Peer Review

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) Cmccoy0913

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

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.)

Peer Review “Slump (Sports)”

LEAD

Strengths:

-Clear and concise intro to the topic

-Introduces the topic’s relevance in various sports

-Touches on both the physical and psychological causes

Improvements:

-Consider better specifying how slumps affect individual athletes AND teams, as the lead mainly discusses individual slumps but could be expanded to explain better how they affect a team’s dynamic.

-Possibly could add more previews of sections to briefly mention the major sections of the article (ex, psychological causes, physical causes, avoidance strategies)

CONTENT

Strengths:

-Clear overview of the causes of slumps

-Good examples of both psychological and physical factors

Improvements:

-Expand on the concept of Team slumps, possibly discussing factors like morale and Team Dynamics.

-Adding more detail in each example could benefit the “famous slumps” section. (mention specific injuries or circumstances)

TONE AND BALANCE

Strengths:

-Bias free language

-Maintains an objective tone overall

Improvements:

-Change specific phrases such as “come up clutch in a big moment” with more neutral terms like “perform effectively under pressure” as this will better formalize the language

-Avoid implied guarantees such as saying “mental training” instead of “Building mental resilience,” as this will suggest practices rather than definitive solutions.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Strengths:

-Great use of scholarly sources and popular media.

Improvements:

-Double check Source quality and see where it is possible to replace or supplement the sources with more reliable sources such as academic studies or Sports journalism. (ex, sportscasting may be less authoritative)

-Look deeper into the section on psychological studies and verify that the content accurately reflects the studied research

ORGANIZATION

Strengths:

-Well structured

-Clear sections that cover different aspects

Improvements:

-Add subheadings, as this would enhance readability by breaking down each factor

-Improve section titles to make it more specific (ex, “avoiding slumps” to “strategies for minimizing slumps”)

MEDIA AND IMAGES

Strengths:

-No images, but this also keeps the article looking clean and neat

Improvements:

-Consider adding images and visuals, for example, for the “famous slumps” section you could add a picture of Tiger Woods.

A image of an athlete with a good caption or an infographic summarizing causes and strategies would enhance reader engagement.