User:ElizabethHRJ/Olufunmilayo Olopade/Alfuller18 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) Mprakes19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mprakes19/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
I think the first sentence of the lead on the actual wiki page is a bit funky. There may be a few too many and's in there.

in the sentence, "Olopade first expressed interest in becoming a doctor at a young age because the Nigerian villages were scarce for doctors and medical resources, which were both in high demand," I would suggest switching it up to where it says that doctors and medical resources were scare in the Nigerian villages.

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?

Content evaluation
I don't see much content about her education. Other than that, the content looks good!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Content added appears neutral. I do not see any bias or anything over or underrepresented.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
In the sandbox, it appears that all of the newly added information comes from one source - encyclopedia.com. I am not positive, but it may be that you run into some trouble with wiki allowing this as a credible source once you move the information to the actual wiki page.

Some sentences do not have a citation.

A few existing citations (2 and 4) displayed an error message when I clicked on them.

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?

Organization evaluation
The content is organized well however, it is a little cut and dry. I would add some sentences about her early career and maybe a chart to list her awards.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There is currently no media.

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
Looks like it's getting there! I like the way that the content is set up in your sandbox. I think the main thing is to just add content from other sources!