User:Chrish101618/Jin Zhang (biochemist)/ChristianSmay 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? Chrish101618
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Jin Zhang (biochemist)

Lead
Guiding questions:

'''Overall the lead is very well written. It is missing a little information but not much.'''


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, lacking a few details but nothing major.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The research and early life and education sections could use more information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all of the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I could not find any.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are some underrepresented viewpoints.
 * 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? Most of the sources are older, I recommend looking into new content as well.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There was not any spelling error that I recognized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, for the most part. There is some information missing that could be added. More information on background and upcoming for sure.

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?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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 quality of the article has improved a lot. I feel there is still some information missing that will need to be added later on. I would also recommend adding some pictures and some more background information. I feel like the sources are really well used and you can probably find more information from the existing sources. Overall, this is going to be a great article. Some of the strengths to this article is that there was a lot of information added and a lot of the fake information was taken off. This gives the article more credibility and lets people know they can trust what they are reading.'''