User:Jbc8/Laura Huenneke/MortonA18 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jcb8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jbc8/Laura_Huenneke?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Laura Huenneke

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.)

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, because there are no sections within the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * There was no content added at this time.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No content was added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is very little information present in this article, so details about her research and education is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It is about a female ecologist so yes it does deal with an underrepresented group of people.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No content was added at this time.
 * 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 content was added, but the content there does not sound biased in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No new content has been 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
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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.)
 * Yes, there are a few articles about her and her work, she also has a few research papers of her own that could be referenced.
 * 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 has been added at this time.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No content was added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No contact was added.

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 images are in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images are in the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images are in the article.

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.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * No content was added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Information regarding her research, education and possibly even personal life would be really good to add to the article.