User:EmDom521/Fred Mhalu/Lxy80 Peer Review

Peer review-completed
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) EmDom521
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EmDom521/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
The author is writing a new article about a character in Wikipedia and she has done a great job in covering general information and introduce the person to people who do not know Dr Mhalu. I only have 1 question for the lead. I know it is difficult to trace one's current project but the citation number 2 might be a little outdated since it is from 2004.

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
Yes I am very amazed at the amount of information covered by this article, especially the section on "career", which shows an in-depth understanding of the career of the scientist. However for the section in "TANSWED", I feel that the focus might be a little off as it discussed more on the side of Tanswed than Dr Mhalu's involvement in Tanswed. It will be good be good have another page for Tanswed project than merging the 2 into Dr Mhalu's article. There is also a section on Notable works, this section can be tricky as it is better to use secondary sources rather than making our own interpretation on his work as this might seem "biased" under the lens of Wiki.

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
Yes the tone is neutral and there is no claims or attempt to persuade reader.

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
The article might not be well backup in my opinion but I also understand how difficult it is to find new sources to back it up. However one area of improvement is to create links to other relevant topics, like MUHAS can be linked.

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
Yes the article is mostly well written, concise and coherent.

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
Not Applicable

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?

New Article Evaluation
Yes it meets the notability requirement and it follows the format of other wiki article. But it is not linked.

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
(+): Well covered, informative, good flow

(-) create more links so that it is more discoverable and try to find more sources to back it up.