User:Tylerharris33/Sport communication/Hunter.browne 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
DrCooper9
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tylerharris33/Sport_communication?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Sport communication#:~:text=Sports communication is an aspect,communication in a sports setting.
Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, I think that his additions will be great for the article. Non-verbal sports communications is huge, and there is not any mention of that in the main article. I think that these additions are a good start, but I believe that just building off of them will be important. I did notice that one of the sources was from the article itself, and I would recommend adding a more reliable source. I also would continue to be adding more sources until you reach at least the ten required. There is not anything in the lead yet, so I think that adding to that will be important, but I know that this is a rough draft. The sources were not letting me access them, but I think it is my computer that is not letting me do it. They are credible, but like I said, continue to add to it. It is also very easy to read. It is not overly complex that it confuses you more than it informs you. The final thing is that all the information is without bias. It is just stated facts backup with the sources. That is important to keep it as bias free as possible, and he accomplished this.