User:Jbc8/Joseph Altman/Hgabrie Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jbc8


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * the lead has not been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * introductory sentence is vague
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there is only one sentence in the lead section and it only states the field Altman worked in
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * too concise, lead section needs to be developed more

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * no content has been added
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * n/a, no content added but there are some recent sources in the article
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article could definitely be developed more and more sections could be added. There is not much info about personal life, and an infobox could be added
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * no content added, existing content appears neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * There is one claim that could have some bias regarding Altman's research being ignored. It maybe should be reworded for clarity.
 * 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, it is written in a biographical manner

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No new content added
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources for the adult neurogenesis are thorough, but there are no sources cited in the "First years" section.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are a variety of authors in the sources
 * 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 definitely more sources available that I saw for this article that have not already been used.
 * 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?
 * No content added
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No content added, there are some grammatical errors in the existing article
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections could definitely be reorganized to flow more logically, and more sections need to be added

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/a
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/a

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * No content has been added, but there are definitely some gaps that could be filled in, and the existing information could be backed by additional references.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * N/a, no content added
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * N/a, no content added. Overall, the article needs more information about Altman's career and research, personal life, and the article needs to be organized better. Also consider adding an infobox for quick info.