User:Hazel Burris/Patricia Nichols/Cgtu222 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hazel Burris


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hazel%20Burris/Patricia_Nichols/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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? No Lead
 * Does the Lead include an    introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's     topic? No. Starts with a bibliography. Need to add an introductory     sentence

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? Could add more on all areas

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? The early life, publish works,     Philosophical views, and recognition sections are underrepresentated. Need     to add more
 * Does the content added    attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from     another? No its all neutral

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up    by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Does the content accurately    reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources     to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough -    i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they    work? The     two links work

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added    well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Draft is not     complete to its full ability, but the biography is easy to read.
 * Is the content added    well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major     points of the topic? Yes, but I think they could add a couple more     sections because I cannot figure out their main point

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include    images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, the picture     they have is of Socrates, but the wikipedia page is about Patricia     Nicholas.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, has a    caption
 * Are the images laid out in a    visually appealing way? Yes1

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * How can the content added be    improved? Need to add a lot more information and have a clear main     point. Sections are clear and concise, but not a lot of information are     under them, if any.