User:Hyablon/Clare Waterman/Idevji 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? Yes, it shows the changes made by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence describes Clare M. Waterman in a clear and concise manner, setting the topic for the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the major sections include early life and education, research interests and honors and awards. The lead does a good job of mentioning all three major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, in the second sentence in the lead, it mentions that Clare M. Waterman is an investigator, chief and director which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it has the right amount of information and is clear and concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is really great! I would just make sure that whatever you mentioned in the lead, that you include it somewhere else in the article!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it includes an award from 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think there is anything missing and the content all fits in great to give a clear picture of this cell biologist and her accomplishments.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes - women in science.

Content evaluation
The content is great! It is relevant and up to date and helps readers understand the life and accomplishments of Clare M. Waterman.

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, everything in the article is covered pretty evenly.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
There is nothing in this article that tries to suede readers. It is written in a very neutral and unbiased tone!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, much of the information is by recognizable institutions like NHLBI.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes!
 * Are the sources current? Yes, one of the articles used as a secondary source was dated to April 30, 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and no, half of the sources are from NIH which seems to be narrow in terms of where the information is coming from. However she did pull secondary sources from Tel Aviv University and University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links in the references work and many of the ones I tried throughout the article worked as well!

Sources and references evaluation
I think your sources looked good! I would just say to try to explore more sources outside of NIH and utilize her publications as sources!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No but I have three suggestions: You have a link to the Arthur S. Flemming Award in the award section but not in the Lead. I would probably switch that around. Also, the second sentence in the lead is a little difficult to read. I think you need to add an 'and' after you mention NHLBI because I was confused about what NIH had to do with anything. Is she a director at the NIH also? Lastly, I think there needs to be a period after 'mouse geneticists' in the header titled 'Research Interests'.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, definitely! Very easy to follow!

Organization evaluation
The organization and grammar of this article is great! I just think the wording of the second sentence in the lead needs to be fixed along with the consistency of adding links.

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 image of the cell biologist and I think it really helps to put this story to a face!
 * Are images well-captioned? The only image present in the article does not have a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I am not sure because the photo was said to be the own work of user 'Rapschem' which does not have an existing page.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the image of the cell biologist is right at the beginning which is visually appealing.

Images and media evaluation
The images and media section is good but could be better! maybe add pictures on what her research is covering?...

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Looking at the edit history, my peer added and organized content that allowed readers to get a better overall picture of Clare M. Waterman! The information added was concise and informative!
 * How can the content added be improved? More detail such as what led the cell biologist to become interested in this field and nationality!

Overall evaluation
Great job! You did a great job organizing the article and adding more information! I would just add more detail, maybe include some of her publications, and fix the links but otherwise it was great and easy to read!