User:Eguest-clemson/Karen C. Johnson/Vrwclemson 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? Eguest-Clemson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Karen C. Johnson

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is consistent and sufficient for the content within the article. The introductory sentence describes Johnson’s current position description and her year of birth—concisely describing the article’s topic. There is only one section which is directly addressed. All of the information present within the lead, her current position, the projects she has lead & worked on, as well as notoriety is present and elaborated on in the article. While the Lead is detailed, it does a good job of concisely summarizing the content.

Content evaluation
All of the content is directly related to Johnson and is up-to-date, with information as recent as 2019. It does a good job of describing her role in the project’s described as well as providing a summary of the project themselves. I think that more information could be provided perhaps on her upbringing and what she has done in her most recent appointment as a chair.

Tone and balance evaluation
There are no statements or evidence of bias towards Johnson that are explicit, however, there is only evidence of positive contributions Johnson has made. In addition, her contributions to each project is mostly limited to whether she has donated to it, founded it, or participated within it. The information on the projects themselves is given the most attention, whereas the paragraph on her upbringing/background, and her current role as chair are given less attention. The tone, while positive, is factual and does not directly try to influence/persuade the reader of anything about Johnson. The authors do a good job of presenting facts without bias.

Sources and references evaluation
Every sentence and piece of information is backed up with reliable sources—not all of them are secondary, however, they do represent what is available on Johnson and her corresponding work. The sources do represent current information, as the majority are within the last decade. In addition, the majority of the sources are written by many different authors, while some are limited to Johnson herself, but were necessary for defining the work that Johnson has contributed to the project. I did check a few of the WikiLinks and they worked, except for one, which is noted in the article itself. This “dead link” would need fixed. Overall, I feel the current sources and references are good.

Organization evaluation
This is the section that I believe could use the most work. There is only one major section “Bibliography” which I think is implicit to the fact that the topic of the article is Johnson herself. I think that the Bibliography could solely include what was in the first paragraph, and another section on her Projects. Within this section, I would separate each project into their own bullets or paragraphs to make it easy to read. The grammar of the article is good.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media and considering the topic I don’t think that there necessarily needs to be.

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?

Overall evaluation
The editor has made good grammatical corrections, which has improved the overall quality of the article. They have also included more elaborating information on the degree and year of Johnson. I think that the content itself could be improved by editing the organization of the article, which could tremendously improve how easy the article is to read. I think that the current lead does a great job of summarizing the content and the added content itself does not appear to be biased in any way.

After reviewing the editor’s proposed contributions, I think they could work on providing references and providing new information to the article as well. They did a good job of clarifying a confusing sentence and making it more concise.