User:Hyablon/Clare Waterman/Averysavoie 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? Hyablon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Clare Waterman

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is very effective at conveying the message of the wikipedia page and providing a brief summary of Waterman's work.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes - very brief
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, a little bit. it discusses her work at the NIH and NHLBI, which are really brushed over in the rest of the article.  The lead contains more information than the body of the article on this topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? its very concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes- as far as I was able to find
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? nope

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? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, the author included several sources that appear to be very reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes- they are from sources that i would consider to be very accurate and up to date
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? not that I'm aware of, but I think in this topic that might be much more of a challenge.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes- this article is well articulated and well organized
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? there is a period missing after "physicists, mathematicians, engineers, and mouse geneticists" where there are 2 citation links
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes- very well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes there is an attached image of waterman
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? i think so - I'm not sure how to check
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? it seems like a pretty fair list of sources - several different sources and they seem fairly recent
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the article is pretty complete - it is easy to understand Waterman's research endeavors through this quick article read
 * What are the strengths of the content added? it is concise and well supported
 * How can the content added be improved? i think that it could go a little more in depth in regards to her specific research, but I think that that might make it a little difficult to understand for people who don't have as much of a scientific background