Dciccoli
Welcome!
editHello, Dciccoli, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review 1
editHi, I'm Casey Farrissey, one of your peer reviewers! Here's what I thought of your article.
The Lead Section: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Does the lead section report the most important information? -- When looking at the lead of the cheerleading article, it allows me to understand what cheerleading is, how/where its used, different components that make up cheerleading in various aspects, and provides a brief overview of its origin and worldwide spread. Overall, I think that this is a very thorough, but still brief and easy to read, lead.
Structure: Are the sections organized well? Would they make more sense presented some other way? --This article has (in my opinion) a large amount of sections. However, they are organized nicely. The only flow that I question is the cheerleading in Canada & cheerleading in the United Kingdom. The sections are fine in themselves, however I feel like they are randomly placed within the article as a whole. They might make more sense under the history section, or under the types of teams in the U.S. today section.
Balance Are any major viewpoints left out? Is anything off-topic? --As far as I can tell, this article is not missing any major viewpoints. This article is good at including not only information about cheerleading itself, but also the implementation of cheerleading in the past, present, and in a multitude of different facets. Nothing within the article seems off topic.
Neutral Is the article neutral in tone? Can you guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there words or phrases that don't seem neutral? Look for "the best," "most people," "obviously, [x]" Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." --This article is very good at keeping a neutral tone. It does a nice job of integrating facts without sounding too blunt or disinteresting. The only part that may reflect the authors viewpoint would be under “Evolution” where it claims “when people think of cheerleading, they usually think of…” Other than that, it seems good to me!
Reliable sources What types of sources does the article primarily use? Are there un-sourced statements in the article? Are there only a few sources, or is most of the information from only one or two sources? -- This article uses a whole slew of different types of sources. Of ones that I clicked, I saw a lot of news articles and definition-based pages. Some of the sources that I clicked led to a dead link. Also, some led me to a video of a cheerleading competition without any text, which seemed strange. While it wasn’t consistent throughout, some of the sections, such as cheerleading in Canada, used only a couple of sources.
Peer Review #2
editI think the lead section gives a perfect detail about cheerleading. It is brief and perfect to introduce and very large page. The sections are named perfectly, however I am also familiar with cheerleading and know that Cheerleading receives a lot of sexism and also called a "non sport". I think there could definitely be a section with that in it.
The article is relatively neutral, I think some of the sections could be split off into separate articles because there is already so much content. For example, the "cheerleading in canada and the UK" sections. There is a sections that does not have a citation and in perspective, I don't think it even needs to be there, its a lot of useless information and general knowledge of cheerleading for representation. Some of the references I do not think are reliable enough, especially ( "History of Cheerleading | iSport.com". Cheerleading.isport.com. Retrieved 2012-08-01. ). The place where the the source is sited is also a little "iffy" and could have something double checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8000:A8E0:19D3:6425:12D6:9D1F (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)