User:Jasper.flame/Beta dispersion/Mtshiel 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? Jasper.flame
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Beta dispersion

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
There is currently no lead associated with the article. There are also no major section contents within the article. The introductory sentence is strong and gives the reader a good sense of what beta dispersion is. There isn't much to evaluate due to the article being having a stub-rating and being very new.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is very relevant in that the original article was barebones in content. The addition of what defines beta dispersion and the history behind its discovery is essential to laying the foundation for the page. The content still needs to be fleshed out regarding its applications and current research projects and data. The history section and its discovery is very well defined, but potentially add more regarding the newer research regarding beta dispersion. Very strong start to the history of beta dispersion.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The does remain neutral and only states the facts as presented. No biases are present and no persuasion was used from my perspective. Good job overall with keeping your tone even and similar to that of a standard wikipedia page.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The history of the article is from a primary source, Rudolf Höber's initial research on beta dispersion. This is no issue here as the main use of this citation is to give the history of its discovery. The source also has been cited around 88 times since its publication online. My only concern was I was unable to determine if your source(s) are valid based on its content(s) as the article linked is published in German.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well organized in terms of the articles flow. I couldn't see any grammatical or spelling errors that stood out. Although, I would suggest creating the Lead for the article and giving your section a Header like "History". Since the article is a "stub" article it would be good to create the framework/skeleton of the article for future editors and make it more clear on which sections/information needs expanding.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are currently no images in the article. Potentially add graphs showcasing beta dispersion to give readers a visual representation of beta dispersion in action.

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?

New Article Evaluation
There are currently 5 references listed, four of them being from the discoverer, Rudolf Höber. You could definitely look into more sources that don't all link back to its first discovery in 1910. Potentially adding references of new/current research regarding the topic. The articles are also linked in german which can make it difficult for other wikipedia editors to back-up your sources.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article had little information to begin with so your addition definitely laid some groundwork for the expanding of the article. Your additions give readers a clear definition of what beta dispersion is and how it was discovered. The biggest takeaways are to add a header to the content you added, create the Lead for the article even if it's blank so there is at least a framework laid out for future editors, and add an image/graph of what beta dispersion looks like with a descriptive caption at the end explaining what is occurring.