User:Gdegidi/Philippa Marrack/Hyablon 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)
 * Gdegidi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Philippa Marrack

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, the Lead is not overly detailed. It is very concise.

Lead evaluation

 * This Lead was great and I like how it was reworded a bit from the previous one. You did a good job at making the Lead even more concise and straightforward.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is not any content missing or content that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, I would say that it does deal with an equity gap/related to historically underrepresented populations because it is a biography on a female cell biologist.

Content evaluation

 * The content added was a great addition to the Wikipedia page. It is great that research is being done on female cell biologists. The amount that you found about Philippa Marrack was amazing because you were able to create 3 more sections with a bunch of information in them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not any claims that seem heavily biased toward a particular position. Because this is a biography, it is pretty easy to keep it unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * This Wikipedia page is one of the most equal-sectioned pages I have seen. Not one topic seems to be over or under represented which is great.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content that was added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any direction.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The tone and balance of this page was very neutral and unbiased, just how it is supposed to be. Great job at keeping it as a biography and adding factual content and nothing that would persuade a reader one way or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources that were added are thorough and definitely relate to the literature found within the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources added are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, a good portion of the sources used were written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They do include historically marginalized individuals, like female authors, when possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * By clicking on most of the links, they do work.

Sources and references evaluation

 * Very great use of the sources you found and added. By adding more sources to this page from the previous amount of sources, I believe that it increases the reliability of your information.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added was very well-written and concise. Definitely easy to read and comprehend all of the information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I love how you added more sections to the page and also condensed some of the sentences unlike the previous version. It makes it more of a paragraphed section, which I think is a great edit that you made to the previous page.

Organization evaluation

 * The breakdown of the sections made this biography easy to read, comprehend, and was very concise. From the straightforward headers, I am able to know exactly what I am going to be reading about before I even start reading. This makes searching for specific information even easier and more efficient.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has one image of Philippa Marrack, but that image was already there in previous versions of this page.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one image is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the one image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation

 * I would say to maybe find some other pictures to include. The one of her is an amazing start, but I images can really enhance an article and help readers understand what they are learning even more.

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation

 * Not a new article; N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added definitely improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Some of the strengths would be the amount of content that was added to the article. By looking at the previous article, I can tell that the new article now has more sections and way more information added to it, which is amazing. Other strengths include the breakdown of the individual sections, having straight to the point titles for those sections, and editing the Lead to be more concise and straightforward.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only thing that I can think of that needs to be improved is adding more images and media to the article.

Overall evaluation

 * This revision of the previous article is well-written, easy to read and comprehend, and definitely has a lot more information added to it. Overall, great job!