User:DerekE9831/Trevor David Rhone/Stevenw9909 Peer Review

General info
DerekE9831, Dreamfar94488, MrDoritos322, VicVal2315
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:DerekE9831/Trevor David Rhone - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead does a good job of concisely explaining what the article is covering. Adding in brief descriptions of the other major sections may help to improve the lead.

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The Lead does a good job of concisely explaining what the article is covering. Adding in brief descriptions of the other major sections may help to improve the lead. Just a reminder to remove the "Article Draft" heading once you're ready.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, a healthy number of related articles are cited. While there isn't much in the Awards and Achievements section, I believe this is a good addition that only adds to the formality and notability of the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, while there are older articles from the late 2000's, many of the articles are newer.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Everything included related a different fact for me so I don't see anything 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? - Yes, underrepresented scientists of color deserve to be covered more.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, each statement is factual and avoids any personal opinions or bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Because of the absence of any opinionated sentences, I believe the entire article flows evenly without any over or under representation.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Each sentence has a citation that follows, well done.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? A brief look at the materials and what can be found on the internet with basic searches establishes that your source list seems to be very thorough.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? for the most part, I did notice that two of the articles are by the same author but still good info.
 * 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.) - From the brief searches I did for previous questions, I think you covered a good range of what is available.

Overall impressions


 * I think the article drafted is great. It is clear and concise and offers information that is easy to digest. It is definitely on its way to publishing consideration. Once again, when you are ready, don't forget to remove the article draft section title.

-Steven