User:Guacamole21/Squire Booker/Chemistry Pink Lady 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) Guacamole21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Squire Booker

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it does. She started the page on this scientist.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does. It is concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not. She could add sections on the research the scientist does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes- she started the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but it needs more details about their life.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing. She could add the research the scientist focuses on or the different company or institutions they worked at. In addition, talk about the personal life.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is extremely neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think she could add a little more content if there are reliable sources available.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes it does. there are several reliable sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they definitely are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link that did not work for me was: aaas.org.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No there is not. GREAT GRAMMAR.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There aren't major sections available.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- not applicable


 * 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?

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? Yes it is.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I think that it does, just because I know she struggled finding finding more reliable sources.
 * 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? Yes it does, but she could add an image for her scientist.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes she does.

==== New Article Evaluation: Awesome job starting a new article! You found good, reliable sources. (may add the birthday to your scientist because I feel like that is a common thing and add the education of them) ====

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete. It has been started.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that she made major steps to creating a good article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think she could add the birthday, the education background, and the different places the scientist worked and their research there.