User:Benbonds005/Tali Sharot/Lwpatte 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) Benbonds005
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Tali Sharot

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead gives a concise summary of her background
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives a short description of her life and biography
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it is just introducing who she is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, her current place of employment and other basic facts are introduced here.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and gives a good intro to the topic

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the facts are relevant to the topic and give a good understanding of her scientific achievements and awards.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, most articles are from recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all content belongs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is mostly objective facts. There are a few opinions presented but they are from reliable sources that give a certain view on her abilities and talents.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? They article is very supportive of her. There aren't any negatives presented but there might not be any available.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all parts were necessary in order to give a good overview of her background and achievements.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? While the article is all positive, there is no attempt to sway opinions as it is just a presentation of her achievements.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are reliable sources throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, there are a wide variety of different sources
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most were published in the last 5 years.
 * 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, the additions are very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I was unable to find any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is broken down into logical sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (NOT APPLICABLE)


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

For New Articles Only (IT WAS DONE ON A PREVIOUS ARTICLE)
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, the added content significantly improved the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added gave a better understanding of her scientific research, achievements, and her importance as a scientist.
 * How can the content added be improved? A picture would have been nice.

Overall evaluation
The article is well written and gives a very concise report on her life, scientific contributions, and the awards that she has won for her work.

~ Landon Patterson