User:Emilylavia/Jane C. Wright/Nicole9houston Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emilylavia


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Emilylavia/Jane C. Wright


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Jane C. Wright

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section

Introductory Sentence – Excellent


 * Introductory was multiple sentences, but was still concise and accurate

Summary – Good


 * Summary covered “Professional Career” section but not all sections. Arguably this section is the most relevant and important though

Context – Excellent


 * All information in lead is present in the body of the article

Article

Organization – Excellent


 * Article was well sectioned off and had appropriate headers for every section

Content – Excellent


 * Article covers information relevant to assigned topic
 * Third paragraph in “Early life and education” needs citation
 * First paragraph in “Personal life” needs citation

Balance – Excellent


 * Article is well balanced and covers all sides of the topic

Tone – Excellent


 * Neutral and appropriate tone is used

References

Citations – Good


 * As stated in Article content section two citations are needed
 * All other citations look good

Sources – Excellent


 * A good number of citations were used
 * Sources appear to be the best available and were appropriate

Completeness – Excellent


 * citations are complete

Existing Article

New section – Excellent


 * New sections are not duplicated and are comprehensive

Reorganization – Excellent


 * I like how the sections are in chronological order with professional life before personal life

Gaps – Excellent


 * Existing article was mainly about professional life, so student editor filled in gaps by adding details about personal life and childhood

Smaller Additions – Good


 * I can’t tell if anything was added/ edited in the “professional career” section which seems like the most important part of the article
 * Additions added were not really irrelevant and they did fill gaps in the article. However, they seemed less important than the “professional career” section.

New Article

Coverage – Excellent


 * Coverage of the topic was comprehensive

Article Body - Excellent


 * Body is dived well
 * Sections are logical

Nicole9houston (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)