User:Acriggs18/Ebba Lund/Vkberndt 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? (provide username): 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, has a clear lead
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part. Its a little short.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! On topic and informative
 * Is the content added up-to-date?Yes! From what I could see from a small amount of research on my behalf.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all content looks on topic and relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes! Not trying to bias readers in any way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No! All neutrally written.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No! Neutral viewpoint
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is neutrally written.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, plenty of secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes! A brief look through the sources shows they are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Most are within a few years old, but some are from the early 2000s. May be dated, but will probably be fine.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links work properly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes! Concise and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, clearly laid out and easy to read.

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, added plenty about her early life and research which was missing in the previously existing article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Discusses her research, which is important for the discussion of any scientist!
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps more about her life would be nice.