User:Jbc8/Joseph Altman/Clemson14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jbc8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jbc8/Joseph Altman
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Joseph Altman

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Preface:

After looking at the article edit history, my peer has not edited the article I am assigned at all. Therefore, I will perform my review on the article itself.

Lead:

The lead is a very short sentence that gives a brief overview of who Joseph Altman is. It states that he is an American biologist and works in neurobiology. There could be a lot more added here in order to give the reader more information, and lay out the article better.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All of the content in the article is very relevant. It gives a good history of Altman's early life and his discovery of adult neurogenesis.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is relatively up to date, as Altman passed away in 2016. The content about his work is presented through 1999, but could be further explored.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be more information added about how his findings are affecting todays medicine and science.

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All of the content in the article is neutral and presented in a professional way.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is no heavy bias in the article. The only controversy found was how his research was heavily ignored, and it was said that neurogenesis was only found in pre-natal development. However, this was later disproven.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the viewpoint of how his research and findings are impacting todays medicine and scientific theory is underrepresented.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All of the sources found in the Wikipedia page are very reliable, as they are all articles, journals, or manuscripts.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content closely reflects what the sources say (sometimes too close), however there is much more information on all of these sources that could add great value to Altman's page. Many of these sources go into great detail about his specific research, which is lacking in the Wikipedia page.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough. While there are other sources available, the sources presented cover many of the bases. However, a lot of this information is not relayed on the page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A majority of the sources are very current, and those that are not are from Altman's work or publications a few years after.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There are many more sources available that detail Altman's research and his work in neurology, whether it be with rats, cats, or other experiments.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links cited work.

Organization:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written in some places, but could use a remodel to make the reading easier.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is one or two grammatical errors, such as a forgotten space ("...earning a PhD.,in 1959..."). Other than that the grammar is solid, but still can ready choppy.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e., broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized for the material presented. It is broken down into his first years, and then his discovery of adult neurogenesis. Once more information is added, I think more/better section division may be necessary.

Images and Media:


 * There are no images or media.

Overall impressions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * There was no content added to this article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The lead can be heavily improved, as well as the information going into Altman's research into adult neurogenesis. The page states that he discovered it, but stops there. I think adding onto these two sections of the page would be a great start to adding to this article.