User:Angela432/HeLa/A.Hausker 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)
 * Users Angela432 and Sebawmm24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Angela432/HeLa

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the information in the lead is up-to-date.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the intro sentence is great.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a mention of almost all of the article's biggest sections in the Lead. There is no mention of sections 5-7, but I think this is ok, as they do not seem as important as the other info present in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There are specific dates not mentioned again the article that are present in the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * One part of the Lead that may be over detailed reads: "Previously, cells cultured from other human cells would only survive for a few days. Scientists would spend more time trying to keep the cells alive than performing actual research on them." To me, this information seems like it may be better suited for the "Origin" section and is too detailed for the Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content in the article is all relevant to the HeLa topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content that is there is the most up-to-date it can be. But I think there have been some events in the past couple of years that are missing from the article (see next question).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no mention in the controversy section of the lawsuits the family brought or Hopkins' measures to resolve these issues, such as the new building being constructed. This seems like it may be important to add to this section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the article is written in an informative and neutral manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, none that I found.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the controversy section is a little lacking and underdeveloped. It seems too brief.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is more of an emphasis on the benefits of using HeLa and less on the ethical implications, so the reader may naturally gravitate towards a position in favor of HeLa use.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the sources appear to be reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a substantial list of sources, which shows the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There is a mix of very current and slightly older, but still relevant, sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I tried worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the Lead could be re-worked as some of it was a little wordy. Other than that, the article reads very smoothly and concisely.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections in this article are great. They are broken into sections in a logical order and manner that is easy for the reader to follow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images of the cells are great, but there are no pictures of Henrietta Lacks or Dr. Gey. I think the article needs pictures of these people, as they are both so crucial to the HeLa line
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the captions are clear and helpful.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they are all properly cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The three pictures in the article now could be broken up a little more, instead of just in a line, as they are now. After these three pictures however, it is all text, so I think some more need to be added to break of the blocks of text and make it more visually appealing.

For New Articles Only
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?
 * yes, I saw in the edit history that the controversy section was added, so that is a huge part of making the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article's tone is balanced and well-rounded.
 * The content is laid out in a logical sequence that tells the HeLa story very smoothly.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More images added and evenly distribute them throughout the article
 * Revise the Lead to make it more concise- maybe move some of the detailed info to the body of the article.