User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger/VicVal2315 Peer Review

General info
Jugem Jugem 1945
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead is well written and includes an introductory sentence that sufficiently explains who and what the article is about. The lead does not include a brief description of each major section. The lead can be edited to include one brief piece of information for each subsequent section. The lead does not include any information that is not present elsewhere in the article. The lead is written concisely and is not filled with unnecessary details.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, as it details details about the subject's life, work, patents and education. I feel that 2 of 3 sources are current as they are dates 3/18/24. The final source is dated 3/10/17/ and could be replaced with a more current source if possible. I found no evidence of content missing or the inclusion of content that does not belong in the article. The article does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance

The content added appears to be neutral in tone, as it does not favor any specific view or stance. The sources used come from neutral contributors. The article does not make any claims that appear heavily biased towards a specific position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The information presented is well balanced. I do not feel that the added content attempts to persuade the reader towards favoring anything or attempt to dissuade the reader from supporting anything.

Sources and References

All of the content includes sources listed throughout. The content accurately reflects the information that is present in the sources. I feel that the sources are thorough because they cover the subject's life and work accurately. Also, the sources used go into detail about Yaeger's patents which is a nice touch. The sources used could be more diverse, as there is not much diversity in the 3 sources that were listed. I could not find any evidence of historically marginalized individuals credited as authors. 2 of 3 sources are from the current month and year. 1 source is from 2013 and could be replaced with a more current selection. I could not find a better source about Yaeger from a peer reviewed origin. All 3 of the links work correctly.

Organization

The added content could be written better. For example, in the "Work" section, the final sentence of the first paragraph is written poorly and does not make it clear what the patent was actually for. Besides this correction, the rest of the article is written satisfactorily. The article contains grammatical an spelling errors such as use of "a" instead of "an" in the first sentence of the Lead. In the first paragraph of the "Work" section created is spelled "crated". The content is well organized and is broken up into sections for each category.

Images and Media

The articles does not contain images and media.

For New Articles

The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirement. The list of sources is not long but covers a lot of information on the subject. The article does not link to another article so it is more discoverable.

Overall Impressions

I feel that the added content has made the article more complete. The inclusion of the Patents section made the work section more complete. The strength of the added content is the depth of information that was provided The patents section is an example. The added content could be improved by covering more information about the subject's personal life.