User:Hylkema/Barbara Wold/Cbakle 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? Hylkema
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hylkema/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, in the article before their contribution, there seemed to be some errors that they fixed.
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and a good introduction to the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it provides better information and explanation to some of Wold's work
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all information added is factual and not biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Her career seems to underrepresented compared to her research
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not, it provides a better story and better explanation of her wokr and her lab.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they seem to come from Wold's lab herself
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources come from the lab and provide detailed information that was successfully added.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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, it is easy to read and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, research could be under career as a sub-heading, but it does the job.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images added
 * Are images well-captioned? No images added
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images added
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images added

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

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 more complete because it provides more detail about Wold's research especially information about her lab and contributions.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It gives a better scientific explanation on Wold's research.
 * How can the content added be improved? I do not think there are changes that need to be made.

Overall evaluation
Concise and good additions to the article that are able explain scientific aspects better, rather than having readers assume what they mean. Also, it gives good details about her lab which nobody previously had said.