User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson/Guacamole21 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?  Guacamole21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? My peer updated the lead to make it more complete.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The sentence is clear and concise. It contains the reason why the person is important.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a content box. Also, the article talks about the research Jane conducted and the awards she has won.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and detailed to get the idea of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I love the added content because it helped explain the topic more in deepth.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date. There were few developments and sources about the person to add.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I could not find missing content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? The content is well written. I could understand the content because it was easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections were organized well which helped the overall flow of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? My peer did not add images or media.
 * Are images well-captioned? My peer did not add images or media.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? My peer did not add images or media.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? My peer did not add images or media.

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? This is not a new article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? This is not a new article.
 * 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? This is not a new article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The added information makes the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think you have a great start for this Wikipedia page. The lead is strong and draws the reader in. I really like the small box on the side which describes the details of Jane's life. It is quick and easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved? I recommend adding a picture of Jane to help the article become more complete. Also, I recommend that the biography and research sections to be edit so that it is easier for someone not in science to understand. I like how you found honors that she won. I would recommend that the article emphasizes how important and prestigious these awards are. I would tie in her publications into the research section. It would help the reader who could be in science look up her publications to find out more information. I would recommend that the article adds images of her research so the article becomes more complete.

Overall evaluation
You are on the right track!!! Keep up the hard work!

Peer Review Response
Thank you for your peer review!! Your suggestions are very helpful. I did not include images because the existing article already has an image of Richardson and some of her ribbon diagrams. Regarding the awards, I like your suggestions to emphasize the importance of the awards. I will try to connect them to her research.