User:Corbin Blackett/Donnell Walton/DDDeniseR Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Corbin Blackett, Oofin245, Shavarb007, Stevenw9909
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Corbin Blackett/Donnell Walton
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead

 * 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, the Lead includes 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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe it to be concise with maybe one or two details that are repeated.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I believe the content added is relevant to the topic, everything I read points directly to Donnell Walton.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In sections labeled Personal life and Publications there is missing information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Also yes, this article address topics related to historically underrepresented populations. I read more of this in the first citation provided rather than the draft itself.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? One viewpoint that was overrepresented was his attendance at North Carolina State University. Although, I don't think it was super overrepresented just stated one too many times.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No not at all.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? For the most part yes, three of the four were fairly current. There was just one source that wasn't which was dated almost 11 years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and Not sure.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I found this website that is similar to the information from the links provided already- https://www.cee.cornell.edu/faculty-directory/donnell-walton.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links provided work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written in my opinion.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't come across any grammar/spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is very well-organized and well reflected in the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? This article does not include images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Yes.
 * 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

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are located in Early life and Education and Career.
 * How can the content added be improved? As far as the content added, I would just say try not to repeat information already written in other sections. Other than that, It looks great.

- Denise Rodriguez