User:Hylkema/Barbara Wold/Lwpatte 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) Hylkema
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Barbara Wold

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but there the lead just gives a basic description.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it tells about Barbara Wold and her current job.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the sections are not mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, the lead gives basic info about her current job.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, some of the previous sources were out-dated, but the new sources were slightly more recente
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all the content fits.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is factual information about Wold.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the information is factual evidence about her work.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I feel that a comprehensive view of her education and career was given.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the information presented is just describing her work, there is no attempt at persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are many sources, however some are from CalTech where Wold has worked at. This may introduce some bias into these sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? A good amount of the sources come from CalTech or the Wold Lab. This gives their point of view but it would have been nice to see some sources without a direct link to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Some are from 2000. They are a little outdated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the sources work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I was unable to find any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is broken down into a logical series.

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 (NOT APPLICABLE)
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? Yes, the added content helped to give further understanding to Wold's scientific contributions
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They help to give a further understanding of her scientific work.
 * How can the content added be improved? Use better sources that aren't from the same place where she works. This could be seen as the sources having bias because they are working with Wold.