User:CPandCP/Jenny Tung/Acriggs18 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? User:CPandCP, User:Scmccray18, User:Cnpollard
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:CPandCP/Jenny Tung

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The sandbox draft does not yet include an updated lead. Looking at the lead already in the article, I believe there's room to improve upon what's already there. The current lead only mentions Jenny Tung's work as an evolutionary anthropologist and geneticist, but I think this could be expanded on to include data in the sandbox pertaining to her work on meerkats, social and environmental stressors, etc.

The current lead contains information that's not present in the article, but I think this can be remedied once more information is added by the editors. I don't, however, think it's relevant in the lead to mention the MacArthur Fellowship Tung was awarded, so I would either remove that or expand upon it more with mention of her other awards.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
So far, the information put in the sandbox seems to be relevant to the subject matter. I'd suggest expanding upon parts of it more, especially within the section pertaining to her research. Is there more information available relating to Tung's research in primates? What other aspects of research is Tung looking at in comparison to her work with meerkats?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
All of the content in the sandbox appears neutral and without bias. I think the education section could be expanded upon a little bit. Where did she study before Duke University?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All sources appear to be reliable, current, and working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
So far the article is easy to read and looks to be void of errors. I like how the topics have been broken down.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
No images have been added.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The information added so far has definitely expanded upon the subject matter. The content seems to all come from great sources, so I would suggest really expanding upon what these sources provide. My only suggestions would be to add some relevant photos down the line and expand upon Tung's education and research.