User:Jaccris/Ellie Cohen/Achu320 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? Jaccris
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jaccris/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, work is still currently in sandbox. Intro is in a heading section and should be in the lead section.
 * 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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Good concise lead. Straight to the point and lays out well what to expect in the article. Make sure to put your intro section on Ellie Cohen into the lead section when you migrate your work into the actual article.

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? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
Good content. Highlights accomplishments well. Maybe can find a better way to organize accomplishments instead of bullet points. And could add more info towards the person (Ellie Cohen) instead of just focusing on accomplishments.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Good neutral tone that focuses on what this person did and doesn't show or persuade any viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good mix of biographical and news sources about the person.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Kind of. A lot of bullet points. Try to use complete sentences and use headings and sub-headers to separate the content instead of bullet points.
 * 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? Kind of. Could use better organization towards the article. Can expand certain sections or combine certain sections with more headers.

Organization evaluation
Organization could use some work. Add more info about the person if possible. Could organize the article better with more sub headers and combining certain things into one heading.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
You can add images if possible. Understandable if images may not be added due to copyright.

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? Kind of. Maybe find some more outside secondary news sources if possible instead of using all author biographical sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? No

New Article Evaluation
A lot of use of biographical primary sources about the author. There is at least 1 secondary news article about the author and their accomplishments. Try to find more secondary sources if possible. Link certain words to other Wikipedia articles if possible.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Not yet published. Still in sandbox
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Concise, straight to the point about the info about the person.
 * How can the content added be improved? Better organization, add more info if possible, use of more secondary sources, getting the article published.

Overall evaluation
Good start to your article. As said, organization could use some work because a lot of it is bullet points. Try to combine sections if possible with sub headers. Try to use some more secondary outside sources if possible. Work is still in drafting and sandbox stage so make sure work get moved and published into the actual article.