User:Cpmyrick/Alice Ball/Everdin26 Peer Review

General info
Cpmyrick
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Alice Ball
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Alice Ball:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead seems to have included all of the content mentioned in the article and all of the new content my peer added.
 * 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, information in the lead is is expanded in the following sections
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise and covers main points regarding Alice Ball.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the newly added content updates more information on her method to treat leprosy and her history background involving the kava plant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, everything seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There do not seem to be any viewpoints overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. Only facts and general information are provided.

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?
 * For the most part the sources seem thorough and reflect the topic very well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes all of the sources provided my peer seem to be current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None seen.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content added seems to be well-organized, and seems to fit in the articles overall organization.

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?
 * 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I would say that the content added improved the quality of the article, as it gave some more description behind Alice Ball's early life and history, along with some history behind her treatment for leprosy.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gave more description about Alice Ball's early life, and also gave some more description about her treatment for leprosy. This information fit in the overall organization of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think this update overall improves the original article.