User:CJessica/Andrew Ewald/Jsdento Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(CJessica)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Andrew Ewal


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Andrew Ewald

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It appears that User:CJessica created this article, so there was no original lead section to update.
 * 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?
 * Yes, but very broadly. There is a section on Ewalds career and his research which are both commented on in the lead by "contributions in the field of metastatic breast cancer."
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All the sources are relatively new, so I would say that the content is up to date.
 * 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?
 * The article does not seem to deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it is very neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but some of the sources are from Ewald's place of employment, which may be biased.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content in the sources matches what is in the article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the number and content of the sources is thorough on Ewald.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all the sources are from the last decade.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. Multiple sources are from John Hopkins University, and I am unsure if any of the sources were authored by marginalized individuals.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There could be better sources, but I am not certain. All the sources seem reputable and reliable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is very well written. It packs a lot of information into very simple sentences that delivers the information efficiently.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is one error in the section titled "Research" where "allows" should be "allow."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is organized extremely well. The article flows cleanly throughout the body sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images.
 * 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 for 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?
 * Yes, the article has 6 independent secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Because the subject of the article is a living person, I think 6 sources is a significant portion of the literature. I believe the sources honestly represent the literature on the article topic.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article looks very well put together. I would not have guessed that this was a new article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, there are multiple link to other Wikipedia pages throughout the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is new, but I would say it gives a pretty complete account of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The organization and clarity is exceptional.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * An image of Ewald would improve the page if one could be acquired. Further detail of Ewald's lab methods are not necessary, but would improve the article in my opinion.