User:Dpmx5f/sandbox

Article Evaluation of the London flu


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in this article is contained to its subject. Nothing in this article is particularly distracting.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article keeps a completely analytic tone and does not appear to contain any notable bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? All checked links worked as intended and further analysis into the contents of the source appear to correctly support the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most information on this article comes from reputable sources and present the facts in a nonbiased way.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Most sources used are from the time of the articles topic, if there were any updates after the major publications, they were not mentioned.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Nothing in the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a important topic with little information to support it.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Pierre Stuff
In 1903, to honor of Curies' work, the Royal Society of London invited Pierre to present their research. Marie Currie was not permitted to give the lecture so Lord Kelvin sat beside her in protest. After this, Lord Kelvin held a luncheon for Pierre.

General info

 * User:Rosyposy01
 * User:Rosyposy01/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all content that was added holds a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Each section added appears to be consistent with giving the right amount of attention to its contents.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Most if not all new content gives the facts in a non-biased way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they 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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


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

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

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?