User:Acriggs18/Ebba Lund/Khdoyle18 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? Acriggs18 and Elizabeth Combs
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Elizabeth Combs/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was slightly modified, but gives the reader a better sense of Ebba Lund before they read the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the led only currently consists of the topic sentence, and it is concise yet informative.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include this, may this would be a good addition.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include any information that is not in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation
I believe this sentence is strong but, maybe just a slight overview of the article could be added as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is as up to date as it can be considering the scientist is dead.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is not any missing content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral while still explains everything properly.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All topics are neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe that everything is represented equally. The only thing that could use more content is maybe Lund's later life.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is very neutral and does a good job of only presenting the facts.

Tone and balance evaluation
It seems like all the sections are about the same size except for the lead and the later section, so that is very good. The tone is perfect and does not need to be adjusted.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All content is backed up by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? All sources reflect all available literature, including some that are in different languages.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links work and can direct you straight to the source.

Sources and references evaluation
I believe that Alexa and Elizabeth went above and beyond with their sources, considering a few of them aren't even written in English. The fact that they went the extra mile to translate everything is very impressive.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Everything is clear, I wouldn't say concise but that is only because the detail added was necessary and informative.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are not grammatical or spelling errors in the added content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I believe that the research section could be broken down a little bit more. The beginning section of it just discusses the schooling of Lund, which I believe could be its own section. Other than that the sections are well defined and written very well.

Organization evaluation
The only thing that needs considering is maybe splitting up the research section a little bit, other than that the sections are very good.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No media was added to this article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No media was added to this article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No media was added to this article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No media was added to this article.

Images and media evaluation
No pictures/media was added to this article.

For New Articles Only (Does not apply)
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? I believe that all the added material was very well written and adds a lot of necessary detail to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The biggest strength of the new material is the fact that there is a research section now, before the article didn't consist of a section about any of Lund's work besides her resistance period.
 * How can the content added be improved? This content can be improved by lengthening the lead and possibly sectioning out the research section.

Overall evaluation
This was a very well written contribution to the article. Alexa and Elizabeth are on the correct track for success!