User:Cpmyrick/Alice Ball/Kemorri Peer Review

General info
Cpmyrick
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead is already a good overview for this article. It gives a broad overview of what the article will be discussing. It doesn't mention anything that is not addressed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead briefly mentions all of the article's major sections. However, the article could be improved by changing the order of the sentences in the introduction to match the order in which each piece of information is expanded on in the text.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include an extra information not present later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and provides a good overview as to what is going to be discussed later in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added to this article is relevant, as she added important facts about Ball's life that were not already present in the article. Each of these additions fit nicely into sections already included in the articles and were informative additions.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date. In fact, some of the revision aimed to ensure that the information included in the article was correct and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? This article is a comprehensive overview of Ball's life. There is no content that doesn't belong
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article addresses a woman who made great contributions in the field of science.

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? All content added it neutral. No additions to edits have persuasive wording or try to make the reader to think a certain way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All new content is backed by reputable sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) The content added to the article are accurate representations of what is included in each source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Though the sources added are reliable, they don't reflect all available resources on Alice Ball. However, this may be because only specific pieces of information needed to be added to this article, as it already included many aspects of Ball's life prior to editing.
 * Are the sources current? Many of the sources lack publication dates. It may be helpful to look further into these sources to ensure that each website is being updated as time goes on / the frequency at which each source gets updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? &
 * 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.) The added information come from a variety of different sources and a diverse spectrum of authors. Though not all are secondary, they all come from reputable websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links included work

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? The content added is written well and easy to read. There are still a few grammatical errors that could be fixed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized into logical sections and the order the information is mentioned in flows. All the content in each section correlates to the section title it is under (no misplaced or seemingly random information).

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? The content included has improved the quality of the article. Additions provided additional important information about the life of Ball and edits made the writing flow better, though there are still some grammatical errors. The content could still be improved by fixing these grammatical errors. It could also be improved by adding some additional information about Ball's work / a more in depth description of her studies.