User:Gamoch/Janet Kelso/Jsdento Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Gamoch)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamoch/Janet_Kelso?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janet_Kelso&oldid=990833230

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead now contains necessary information to reflect my peer's additions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It does. The lead sentence introduces the subject and gives the most important, basic information on the topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead does a great job of summarizing the other sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It may contain a more detail than it should, but it is concise in its delivery.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All the added content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All the sources and content seem to be current and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't believe any content is missing or inappropriately included in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article's topic is a female scientist, so it is helping fill one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, but the language sometimes comes close to making statements of value.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I did not feel any biases towards particular positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think all viewpoints were represented fairly.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, but the article can read more like a narrative than an encyclopedia at times.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a few statements that are unsupported by a reliable secondary source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content of the sources match what was written in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There numerous sources, which are all thorough. I believe the sources represent the available literature well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The oldest source is from 2010, so yes the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The authors of the sources are diverse. A few journal articles are cited as sources which are authored by people of all backgrounds.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I think there might be better sources out there, since some of the sources used are from websites, but I believe it may have been hard to find sources on a living person.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well written, but as I said earlier, the adjectives and language can read like a narrative at times.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't catch any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized and easy to read through. However, there is a small portion of the lead section that I feel should have been in the body.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is a picture of Janet Kelso that adds to the intrigue of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * To the best of my knowledge, th eimage complies with Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * The article definitely feels more complete with the additions my peer made.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added provides greater understanding of Janet Kelso's research and its relevance.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the best improvements would be restructuring of the sentences to remove adjectives with value based connotations and adding citations on some statements.