User:Jtagosto/Carlos D. Bustamante/Scmccray18 Peer Review

Peer review Of Carlos D. Bustamante
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
Users: Jtagosto and JacobZoller

Carlos D. Bustamante


 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I am assuming that the lead is the topic titled, "Early Life and Education," as it talks about Bassler's background. You guys are off to a great start and I think it's important to talk about her education and credentials, maybe give a little more information on the programs she was apart of and her degree if you're able to find it. Also, under that same topic, the first sentence starts with, "...in Biology, along with a M.S. in statistics." That is a little confusing as I cannot tell if that is the start of your sentence or if you are adding to additional work that is not viewable in your sandbox.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic as the topic is a person. The information about his past I'm sure is correct and the date of that information will not change. If your scientist has conducted any other research or has found any more recent developments before or after 2013 is the only thing that I can think of in terms of the dating of the information, but like his background the fact that he did this research and made this discoveries will not change, it would only be a matter of if the information was retracted or not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
None of the information seems to be biased or in favor of a particular information. The draft is written factually and without persuasion. Maybe define some of the scientific term in case people without background information is reading your article so they can understand what is going on.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Both sources are accessible and reliable as they are current, reflect on Bustamante, and come from dependable outlets. With that said, there are very few sources, maybe add a few more when doing more research.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I like the idea of when writing an article about a person, having it in chronological order because it makes it flow better, in my opinion. It appears that is what you intend to do, so I think that it's very well organized. Like I stated earlier in the tone topic, maybe adding definitions or explain more difficult terms so that others can understand the information if they won't have the background knowledge. I did not notice any obvious spelling or grammatical errors.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images on this article at this time. Maybe add a picture of him near the lead, and of there's a picture of his research adding that near professional career topic.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A not a new article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall you're off to a good starting point, but at this time the content is very small. Here are a few ideas to add content: go into more detail about his qualifications, degrees, and education, tell where he currently works or where he conducted his research, a lot more information on the research as it's kind of vague but you have the main ideas down, and talking about some awards he has gotten. Like I said those are just ideas and I get that it's a draft.