User:Ccarrandii/Carole Hackney/Ruthc0718 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

 * Ccarrandii
 * User:Ccarrandii/Carole Hackney

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The Lead includes two introductory sentences that are concise but needs to include what specifically Carole Hackney did in her life span.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The Lead included a text box that states all of the article's major sections.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

There is no article on wikipedia about Carole Hackney.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is overly detailed. For example, the section about Hackney's childhood, is mostly about her father and his career instead of it being about Hackney and what she experienced.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added is relevant to the topic because the content describes who is Hackney and what she has done.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The content added is up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is no content that is missing or irrelevant to the topic.


 * 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 deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because the article is based on a woman who spent most of her life involved evolving medicine and teaching it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

The content is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The background section is a bit underrepresented compared to the rest of the article.


 * 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, however one source is considered a primary source because Carole Hackney is one of the authors.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

No


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, except the second one: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Hackney.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, for the first part of the article the verbs such as "is" are included. However, Carole Hackney is deceased, therefore, the verbs should be in the past tense instead of present.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes

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?

Yes


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

Second source does not work and the fourth source is considered primary evidence instead of secondary. The first source and third source accurately represent all of the 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?

Yes


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes

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 complete based on the small amount of information that was gathered.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths include: the organization of the article and the information that was added to the article.


 * How can the content added be improved?

The content can improved by fixing the couple of kinks mentioned earlier in the review.