User:Kcschultz18/Dr. Julie Robinson/Aeburtner 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?

User:Kcschultz18


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Kcschultz18/sandbox

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 is only one sentence. I would add a little more information to it, especially as the article itself gets more flushed out. It doesn't not describe the major sections, but does inform readers of the subject's importance. It does not cover any information that is not covered in the article and it is concise, perhaps excessively so.

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
All of the content is relevant and up to date. I think adding more content about the subject's research would be helpful.

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 tone is neutral and informative. All the data provided is cited and the content is unbiased.

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
The sources are reliable secondary sources. Both sources provided are recent and thorough and all the links work. The only thing I would say would be the more sources the better!

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 added content is sensibly organized and easy to read. There are no major grammatical or spelling errors. I would suggest starting of each new section referring to the subject by their name rather than "she" just for the sake of clarity for the readers.

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 not currently any visual media added to the article, though I do think that would be something that would boost the visual appeal of the article.

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
This is a new article, and it meets the minimum requirement of sources. I would recommend adding more sources simply for the sake of showing the availability of information. The article is laid out in an organized fashion that is comparable to that of other articles. Currently there are no links to other wiki articles, though I think that would be helpful for readers.

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
Yes, the proposed additions will make the article more complete. The proposed additions make the article exist, and they are a good foundation for a new article. More information about the subject's specific research would be helpful as well as visual media and the addition of more sources.