User:Jbelt21/Keith R. Porter/Jbc8 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jbelt21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jbelt21/Keith_R._Porter?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Keith R. Porter

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes
 * 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, mainly focuses on career / research
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * fairly concise

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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, No opinions are presented
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, missing a source or two at end of career / research section
 * 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?
 * No, most close to 20 years old
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes, yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * No, a pretty good balance is 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None seen
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not in draft, present in article
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, article is much more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content is very well structured, especially career / research section
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Images of some of the structures and organelles that Porter helped discover could really aid in understanding

Overall evaluation
Updates to the original article were very beneficial. Could have included "father of cell biology" somewhere in the lead to stress the significance of his accomplishments in biology early in the article.