User:Emusial/Ruth Hubbard/Tigers125 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? Emusial
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ruth Hubbard

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 editor updated the Lead in order to include information added to other sections of the article. The introductory sentence briefly describes Hubbard's notable achievements, and further paragraphs sum up other important findings and information in the sections. The Lead does not to appear to include any information that is not included in the article.

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
Lots of content was added to the article, but it is relevant to the topic. Most information added was about Hubbard's scientific career and her transition into activism. Before the edits, there was not much information about Hubbard's activism and the new edits add much needed content.

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
The content that was added is neutral. The information added about Hubbard's personal life and activism is not heavily biased, and all additions were clearly cited and backed up by fact. This content does not take any side and does not try to persuade the reader in one way or another.

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
Sources were added for all new information provided by the editor. The editor also attempted to update previous references that either did not work or were not cited correctly. The updates to the activism section were all clearly cited and recent. All of the links that I clicked on worked correctly and traveled to the correct places.

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 very well written and easy to read. They took previous paragraphs and rephrased them to make them easier to understand. As I could tell, there were no grammatical or spelling errors. The content was either restructured or newly structured to be clear and easy for the reader to understand. The sections were clearly divided and included relevant content.

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 expanding that the editor did to the article greatly enhanced it. The section added about Hubbard's transition to activism explained an entirely new side to the scientist. It gave insight into how her views have changed over time and updates the article to the current year. The edits help to further explain the life of Hubbard and her research. The editor explained multiple things from the article which were only mentioned before. The references added were very relevant and added to the completeness of the article.