User:Jtagosto/Carlos D. Bustamante/Tbronson16 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Jtagosto, JacobZoller
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jtagosto/Carlos D. Bustamante

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the Lead has been updated with new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The article includes an introductory sentence that lists the geneticist covered in the content. However, this sentence could be strengthened by including more brief details about the subject's work and accomplishments (e.g., his research focus(es) within the field of population genetics).
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the Lead includes a table of contents that outlines the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead doesn't seem to include any information that isn't covered in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead reflects the content covered in the article and does not contain any irrelevant information. However, the Lead could stand to have more detail regarding the scientist's personal background and how his work is significant to the field of genetics.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The added content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It doesn't appear that there is any missing or irrelevant content.

Content evaluation
The added content strengthens the sections on the subject's educational background and prior research. The content is concise and informative.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the added content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There do not appear to be any overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in any manner.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone sounds neutral and professional. I did not find any issues regarded tone or article balance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All new content is cited by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem to be thorough and appropriate to the subject matter. The sources adhere to Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Are the sources current? The sources appear to be current and up-to-date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Both links work.

Sources and references evaluation
There do not appear to be any issues with the sources and references added to the article. Both sources are reliable and professional.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise and relatively easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I was unable to find 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? The content is organized appropriately and breaks down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation
The content overall is well-written. However, I might suggest re-wording the first added sentence in the "Early Life and Education" section. I would recommend describing the subject's educational background in chronological order (bachelor's, followed by M.S. in statistics, and later a doctorate in biology).

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article doesn't include images.
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
It may be beneficial to add a photo, such as a recent picture of the subject or a diagram relating to his research.

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The added content improves the existing article and makes the article higher in quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content is concise and uses appropriate language. The article remains neutral even when describing a study that could be considered somewhat controversial.
 * How can the content added be improved? Re-wording the sentence mentioned previously could make the section flow a little more smoothly. Additionally, more information about his personal and research background.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this is an excellent start to the article. The added information strengthens the existing content and utilizes appropriate references.