User:Kamila.tavarez/John Stith Pemberton/NRC2020UPRC Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)  Kamila.tavarez 
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kamila.tavarez/John Stith Pemberton

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
The lead of this draft includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It has relevant information based on the main theme of John Stith Pemberton’s article draft. Also, the article includes a brief description of its major sections. The lead provided in my peer’s draft of the article is concise and briefly describes the major point of this article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content of this page is relevant to the topic. However, I think that in the section “Personal life” there could be added more information that may be about experiences during his life or more personal details. I think adding more specific information based on his personal life would help keep improving it, but it does not mean that is not great. The draft itself is interesting and it delivers great coherence.

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
The content added to this page is neutral. It gives information, from my perspective, in a neutral way based on the content related to the main theme of this draft: John Stith Pemberton. They are not any claims or viewpoints on this page. The content here does not attempt to persuade a reader’s point of view with the information provided in the draft.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources of this page are abundant and well distributed through the page (every section has at least four sources approximately). However, I think the sources could be more updated to help improve the verifiability of the page. Also finding more references is a good way to keep improving the draft (although the page itself has abundant references).

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
The organization of this page is concise, clear, and easy to read. The page has all the sections identified, organized, and well structure.

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
The images are present on this page, they are relevant to its content and they provide a visual understanding of the topic. They have brief explanations and provide pertinent details of John Stith Pemberton's life.

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
Not applicable.

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
The content’s quality of the article has helped improve this page. However, they are some other improvements that would help keep structuring this page and deliver at the end a better draft for the article of John Stith Pemberton. For example: adding more details to the section "Personal life” and looking for more information that could be added to the draft (some recommendations). I want to be clear that the page is great and that it has a good structure base to keep improving this draft for the article. I hope that this peer review can help my classmate keep improving and giving her best like she is already doing.

Here is my peer review. Thank you for your attention and keep improving! 😊