User:Cmselecman17/Elodie Ghedin/Maurabescull 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? Cmselecman17 and Jpatt19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jpatt19/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not that I saw.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The existing lead in the article does, but there is not much added information in the sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It has some overview, however there could be more background information as well as more information about her education and career.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not in this article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is no lead in the sandbox

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There are relevant sources that have been added to the sandbox
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The most recent content is dated 2012
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content that has been added is relevant to the article

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is simply information about awards presented to Dr. Ghedin
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not from the content I read
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel that with the exception of needing more information, the article does not have any tendency toward a specific viewpoint
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The information is quite straightforward without any particular leaning toward one idea or another

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? There are some articles, but I don't know if it's the most complete amount of information that could be added
 * Are the sources current? The sources are dated from 2007, 2011, and 2012
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the available links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The added content is easy to read and understand
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were no grammatical errors apparent to me
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The added content is mostly links to outside sources, so there is really no content that is organized in that way

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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? n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe that the added information is helpful, but I feel it would also be beneficial to add more background information to flesh out the existing article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content aids in painting more of a picture of Dr. Ghedin, however there are still areas lacking information
 * How can the content added be improved? More background and current information would be beneficial to the overall strength of the article