User:Fatehazannath/Abel Wolman/Dlu16 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? (Fatehazannath, Jordanj140)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fatehazannath/Abel Wolman

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the new lead provides more information about Wolman's major work (water chlorination in collaboration with Linn Enslow).
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that succinctly details who Abel Wolman was.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description of his career, major work (chlorination of water), and implies his impact and achievements. The lead includes all of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is written well and concisely. It covers all of the necessary elements, and does not overstep its boundaries (as a general summary of the important aspects to know about the topic/subject)

Lead evaluation
The lead is well written, and it covers all of the necessary points found in the draft. I believe that there is no need for further major revision of the lead, but I would suggest that the concluding sentence could be broken up into two sentences or slightly shortened. "Wolman is best known for his breakthrough research, alongside his peer Linn Enslow, in the chlorination of Baltimore's municipal water supply, which has benefitted the municipal water supplies in other American cities and continues to contribute to the distribution of safe water globally." Perhaps the phrase "which has benefited the municipal water supplies in other American cities" could be rewritten as "which has improved the distribution of safe water throughout the United States and globally." This is very nitpicky though, and this suggestion is merely based on the sentiment that this particular sentence feels slightly too packed/long.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the added content is relevant to Wolman (that being his work on water chlorination, biographical information, awards and honors). Although I find it somewhat strange to have a "major accomplisments" section and "publications" section with only one major publication. There could be other relevant research topics that Wolman might have also contributed to that could be listed under this section. However, this is nitpicky and boils down to semantics.

Content evaluation
All content added is sufficient, and gives a good and comprehensive understanding of Wolman and his legacy. In particular, the addition (and reorganization of content in general) of information about his career and major work on water chlorination greatly improved the article from its original state. Again, under the "major publications" section, I think there could be another important contribution that Wolman gave to society that is detailed in his variety of publications. Nonetheless, all of the added content greatly enhanced my understanding of who Wolman was and his contributions to society, and this added content is well implemented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
All the language used is neutral and objectively presents Wolman and his contributions for what they are. Even though the subject matter is inherently positive, the way the article is written does not praise or exalt Wolman. In this way, the article separates the figure from his achievements (so that the biography section of the article is strictly objective and factual).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Depending on the source, i.e. legacy and biographical information are from around 1990s to 2020. Information on the actual publication is from 1913 (summarizing the primary source).
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, only reference 17 doesn't have a clickable link.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources used are all relevant to the topic, and they back up all claims and information added into the article. The sources used come from reputable publishers or websites (American Journal of Public Health, The American Historical Review, etc.). The references all pop up in the article and show that the link is active (and to verify this, I clicked on the links and they were active). Overall, the links all work, and the references and sources are relevant and thorough.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Very minor spelling errors such as "benefitting" (has one t), (it's like this in the original, but the "fields" section in the right side has this weird formatting with "sanitary engineering." when it would look better as "Sanitary Engineering". I think that this particular sentence is written kind of weird: "As the fourth eldest child of Polish-Jewish immigrants, Wolman received his high school education from the Baltimore City College in 1909." Like it kind of reads as "because he was the fourth oldest kid, Wolman went to Baltimore City College for high school"? Perhaps the "as the fourth eldest child" fits better in the first sentence or omitted altogether?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is a major improvement on the original.

Organization evaluation
The break down of the "background" heading found in the original article is much more coherent and easier to follow. The subheadings "early life and education", "career", "personal life and death" were a great way to divide up the original article's content into something that makes sense. The organization of the major accomplishments section is also well done. However, I'm not entirely sure if the "legacy" main section (with a tribute subheading) is necessary when there's a "major accomplishments" section. It seems somewhat redundant in a sense to have these two sections be their own main heading.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The portrait of Wolman added helps readers associated the content of the article to the actual figure.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is sufficiently captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images added are placed on the right side. This is great as English speakers eyes' will be lead to the image as they read through the text (as we read from left to right). The images are laid out in a non-obtrusive way. The portrait provided is very clear and has good resolution. Although, I'm not sure if you emailed whoever the copyright owner might be. (I clicked on the image link, and it says that "This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing."

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very in-depth yet easy to understand, summarizes the major publication quite well, very coherently laid out
 * How can the content added be improved? there are some nitpicky syntax and spelling errors that could be improved, there could be another major contribution added under the "major accomplishments" section (if it is found).

Overall evaluation
This particular draft is a substantial improvement from the original article in every way. The lead provides information as it pertains to all of the relevant subject matter throughout the article (as opposed to the original only detailing career and poorly stating his work on water sanitation), the biographical information is well organized and broken down into coherent subgroups, the major accomplishments section summarizes Wolman's publication well (without relying on quotes directly from the publication), and the claims/statements made in this article feel substantiated by the references and links provided. The overall quality of this article is quite high, and I believe that there isn't a need for too many major changes to this draft.