User:Ekrodge/Judi Allen/Klkelly02 Peer Review

General info
Ekrodge
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the awards, research, and publications are key to understanding who Judi Allen is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all seems up to date but some doesn't have dates.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I know of.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it walks through her accolades and accomplishments without a biased tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there's not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * potentially more could be added to the early life section but I'm not sure if there are more sources for this section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I think it just opens the readers eyes to what Allen did.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it seems like every idea has a source with it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there are multiple different sources from various scholarly journals and articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most are from within the last few years and some are from the early 2000s. The only thing is that some of the sources lacked a date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the publications is more of a listed section but the research is well written and walks you through her research accomplishments and what it means for other pathways like the immune system.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes I think so because I think that prior to these additions it was vvery difficult to grasp what Judi Allen had done and what the implications of her research were.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The research section.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would just add brief descriptors of what was added for the Lead section!

Overall evaluation
I feel like what was added took a lot of time and shows a great amount of input. I think this was very informative and all added information was definitely needed and helpful.