User:Asdfghjkl448/Konkordiya Samoilova/Wcoz98 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)
 * Asdfghjkl448
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Asdfghjkl448/Konkordiya Samoilova

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It is the same. The existing lead already gave a good overview.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Sort of, it just describes her career which is the main section of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and accurate.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, expanded upon the career section quite a bit.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Fairly, it looks like the latest source is from 2001.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It focuses on the story of a women who faced adversity in her life and career. So it does in a way.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, a lot of "she did" rather than adding an opinion. Just straight facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, it is just an objective viewpoint.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It looks like 8 new sources have been added, so yes, a variety of new info has been added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * As far as 2001, which is fairly current for an article about a single person that lived 1876-1921.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * A lot of different academic journals and authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is very clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, different sections that work well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Definitely, while they didn't add a huge amount of info, what was added really benefits the article and is backed up by a variety of sources.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Clear info that delivers all relevant information as concisely as possible.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe add a little more detail, as of now it is pretty great.

Overall evaluation
Great additions. The article's best asset is its clear and concise info. The delivery was really good. Maybe the only thing to add would be a bit more info.