User:Eguest-clemson/Karen C. Johnson/Hyablon Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Eguest-clemson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Karen C. Johnson

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it includes a clear introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It does a great job at briefly describing her major research initiatives. The only thing missing are her awards and work experience (they did not seem too major though).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. Everything in the Lead I found within the article at one point.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is straight to the point and concise.

Lead evaluation

 * The Lead was very well-written and concise. The student did a great job at making sure to leave the specific details for the other sections while also outlining those major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that is missing to 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 topic?
 * The only thing I would say is that it deals with a female cell biologist, which can be viewed as an equity gap and/or a historically underrepresented population.

Content evaluation

 * The content was definitely a great start for the research of a female cell biologist. Once there is more information available from more sources, hopefully those will be added to the article as well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not see any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would say maybe the Research section is bulkier that the other sections, but that may be because that is the main section for the article (which would make sense).
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added is very neutral and factual.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Since this is a biography about a Karen C. Johnson, it is factual and not persuasive/biased, which is what you want for a biography. The student did a great job portraying the many types of research that Karen C. Johnson was involved in.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough. I can click on a source and read it and see where the content came from and how it was paraphrased/incorporated into the Wikipedia page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current. There was not one source that was older than 10 years (the oldest was from 2012).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources come from a diverse spectrum of authors. A few are by female authors, how are historically marginalized. The other sources came from institutions or from male authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation

 * The sources used definitely add support to the page. The information and sources that were chosen to be used are current, thorough, and reliable. I would trust this Wikipedia page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, everything that was added is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only error that I caught was in Work Experience section. There should be a space between the last word of the 3rd sentence (world.) and the first word of the 4th sentence (In).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I loved to see how this student broke the content down into sections. Before, I noticed that the previous author had the information written in one monster paragraph. Forming the sections made it much made it much easier to comprehend, read, and also find the information that you are looking for more efficiently.

Organization evaluation

 * I think the organization really made this page easy to read and comprehend. I love the sections that were added and the student made sure that each section had a clear and concise title. The information was well-written and easy to follow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There were no images/media added.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There were no images/media added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There were no images/media added.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There were no images/media added.

Images and media evaluation

 * I would definitely recommend adding some type of image, even if it is just a picture of Karen C. Johnson. That will give the reader a better understanding of who they are actually learning and reading about.

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

New Article Evaluation

 * THIS DRAFT WAS NOT A NEW ARTICLE, 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 believe the content added improved the overall quality of the article. It is definitely more complete from before. Hopefully there is new information about Karen C. Johnson soon, so that way someone else can add to it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The major strength that sticks out to me is how the article was organized. It made the page very easy to read and comprehend. If I needed a specific detail or fact from that page, I would definitely be able to find it efficiently because of the broken down sections.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Definitely add some images/media to the article. It will help readers better understand who Karen C. Johnson really is. Also to fix that one grammatical error.

Overall evaluation

 * This was a great article to read and it made it fun to learn about the accomplishments of Karen C. Johnson. Great job on the organization and the content that was added!