User:Chemistry Pink Lady/Carolyn R. Bertozzi/Cation2020 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? Chemistry Pink Lady/ Carolyn R. Bertozzi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chemistry Pink Lady/Carolyn R. Bertozzi

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 editor has done a good job of conveying the impact and importance of Bertozzi's work and research. The lead is concise and provides a clear overview. Overall, the lead provides matches the content in the article and appears to be up-to-date. Maybe including the year of her membership for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Inventors, and Institute of Medicine would help with the chronological flow of the lead.

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
Content is relevant and appear to be up-to-date. Another optional edit would be to include a brief phrase alongside each honor/award listed as these descriptions may better express the significance of each recognition.

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
The tone is neutral; however more sources would add to the diversity of the viewpoints.

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
An area for improvement may be the reference list and citations. Some statements are not connected to a reference. Including more references in the lead and in the section about her work would make the article a more balanced and thorough representation of existing literature about Bertozzi. A separate "Reference" section is also missing, but I expect this list will be added later too.

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
Content is concise and flows well. However, the "Life and career" section seems a bit dense. Maybe consider breaking up the content; if not, this section reads well already. Read through another time for grammatical corrections.

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
Images are well captioned in the existing article on Bertozzi; I assume the sandbox does not include Bertozzi's image because the existing article already includes her picture.

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
Overall, great start! The editor contributed a lot of content to the career and life section of Bertozzi's page. The biggest improvement can be made in the References section. I look forward to seeing how the editor continues to develop this article. --~