User:Jbelt21/Keith R. Porter/Morgan3Davis 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?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Keith R. Porter

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
The lead was updated with a relevant overview of the material that was added to the article. I don't think that the Lead has too much information. It has just enough and doesn't go into too much detail about what will be presented later on in the article.

Content
It appears that all content that was added is relevant to the topic. It is up-to-date and doesn't have any extraneous information that subtracts from the article. This article doesn't necessarily fill any of Wiki's equality gaps in terms of representation, but that's not a bad thing. If possible, it could be nice to add a bit more to the career section.

Tone and Balance
The article is very neutral and doesn't overemphasize any of Keith Porters achievements or awards which could imply bias.

Sources and References
All the sources seem to be reliable from second parties. The reference section is a strange format-- the first few references are numbered and the other half are bulleted. Making these all one format could reduce any confusion the different formatting could cause. Most of the sources are a bit older, but that can be attributed to the fact that Porter died before the turn of the 21st century. I think that using the Scientific American source was a bit confusing considering it wasn't Porter that was awarded the Nobel Prize, but rather his colleagues. The wording in the article doesn't explicitly state that he didn't win which could be a bit confusing. The "Image and Video Library" link in the last bulleted reference does not work.

Organization
The content added is well-written and is free of any grammatical and spelling errors. I really like the organization of the article. It's very easy to follow and it doesn't feel like I'm bogged down sifting through section after section.

Images and Media
N/A -- no images

Overall Impressions
The article is definitely more complete now. I think with the limited articles available on the web about Porter, the editor did a great job in including as much information as possible without rambling to fill space. Strengths-- it can be hard to keep a neutral tone, but this article did a great job at remaining neutral throughout the whole length of the paper. It was organized in a way that was easy to follow and used mostly appropriate sources. Possible improvements-- using an article other than the Scientific American article or explicitly mentioning that Porter did not win the Nobel Prize could be helpful. Going back to check the links to make sure all of them are working properly and formatting all references in the reference section the same way could also lead to some improvement in the overall strength of the article.