User:Cerebro científico/Aaron Ciechanover/CPandCP 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) Cerebro cientifico's article on Aaron Ciechanover.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Aaron Ciechanover

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes all content pertains to Aaron Ciechanover.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * There only being a singular source does not allow for me to assess how up to date the information is. It does line up with the information on the already established page.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would like to see the expansion of the publications as far as what research it pertains to.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, everything is stated in a factual manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, everything published is stated in a very matter of fact manner, without any bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Some of the publications could be expanded on further, simply putting the name and date of the publication is not enough information to necessarily demonstrate the importance of his publications.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Other than impressing the reader with the accomplishments of this biologist, there wasnt any intent to persuade the reader.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: Tone of the article is very matter-of-fact, as it should be. Some categories could be expanded on further (such as publications) however the information up to this point has been clear and unbiased. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, more sources need to be added to make this article more dependable as far as informational acquisition.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The source being an interview with Aaron Ciechanover is decently reliable literature. However it being an interview I'm not sure how the source differs from a reference to a publication that was also by Aaron.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The source referenced is from 2005, so while not being the most current article, I wouldnt expect an abundance of articles to be about the research done/awards won, from approximately a decade ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The only link available is the one to the articles source in the reference section.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It lacks some flow of topics, with the sandbox appearing more as a collection of accomplishments versus being read through.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It could use some headers instead of bolded words in order to organize 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?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images

Overall impressions
==== Overall evaluation: The articles reference section as well as its organization could be improved in a way which allows the reader to acquire sourced information in a simple way. The information up to this point seems like very good information, however without accessibility to those sources, there isnt a way to back it up. If the editor is using the main wikipedia page as a source, I would encourage them to cite it just so other editors can see where that information is getting pulled from. This biologist seems very interesting and should have some great information available to publish! ====