User:Fatehazannath/Abel Wolman/Pnovello 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) I am reviewing the work of Fatehazannath
 * 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?
 * 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 lead does not reflect the new content that was added by the user. The lead, however, contains an introductory sentence explaining the significance and impacts of Abel Wolman as a scientific engineer and his work in modern sanitation. The second sentence of the lead transitions into a brief overview of his major contributions and aligns with the rest of the informational sections in the article, such as his role in the chlorination of Baltimore's municipal water supply. I believe that the lead is concise and offers readers a brief synopsis of the major facts and ideas about the life and career of Wolman.

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
The articles content is relevant to Abel Wolman and effectively captures the different crucial aspects of his life. The user includes a detailed description of Wolman's different types of education, the progression of his career from public health to academia to his eventual involvement and work with the American Journal of Public Health and other public health organizations. The article also mentions the numerous awards Wolman received as well as his research publication on "Chlorine Absorption and the Chlorination of Water," and then describes the current academic and social tributes to Wolman which are still relevant. I believe that the article provides a detailed overview of Wolman's work and current legacy, and does not contain unnecessary information.

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 added to the article is presented in a neutral tone and does not attempt to convince readers to favor one position over another. In terms of viewpoints present in the article, most information cited comes from factual or academic resources, and I believe that the article includes a variety of information to showcase the different characteristics of Wolman.

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 sources used to provide the evidence for the article come from reliable secondary sources, such as the Journal of Industrial & Engineering Chemistry and the American Journal of Public Health. The sources are thorough and detailed and pertain to the information conveyed in the article and a majority are current resources. However, some resources such as Water, Health and Society, Selected Papers by Abel Wolman are not current and can cause an issue of bias as this source is a product of Wolman's thoughts and ideas. However, all of the links to the sources work.

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 article is well-written and is concise and easy to read. There do not appear to be any significant grammatical or spelling errors. For a majority of the article, the content is well-organized and relates to the major topics discussed about Wolman. However, in order to enhance the article's organization, the awards mentioned under "Career" which are in relation to Wolman's involvement in professional societies should be listed under the awards section. Also, the "Career" section can be broken down into different parts to reflect the different career types that Wolman pursued, such as public health and academia, which would also enhance the article's organization.

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
The article contains an image of Abel Wolman and an image of the Abel Wolman Municipal Building. Both images enhance the understanding of the topic to provide readers visual representations of Wolman and the tribute dedicated to him. Both images are well-captioned and encompass the purpose of the image, but do not provide any sort of visual appeal. The images also adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?

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 article is definitely more complete as there is greater information on the different career paths pursued by Wolman as well as descriptions of his awards and recognitions. The article also provides a more organized layout of the information about Wolman. Overall, the content added provides new insights into Wolman's significance in public health and sanitation and emphasizes his role in a variety of institutions and his research publication on the chlorination of water. The content added can improved by greater organization to condense informational sections and to keep finding more information to describe the life of Abel Wolman.