User:Kcschultz18/Dr. Julie Robinson/Vkberndt 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): 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? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, speaks about Julie A. Robinson's early life, career, and research
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, from what I could gather from the internet
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it all appears relevant to the person being written about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, very well done.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is all mainly facts about the person, such as where they had gone to school and the fields they earned degrees in
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? What Julie A. Robinson researched is not stated.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is neutrally stated.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they have sources from Universities.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They could use more sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are from no more than two the three years ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links I could find functioned correctly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is clearly broken down

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there are no added 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

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? No, they are short on sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are only two sources, not exhaustive.
 * 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? Yes, follows a pattern.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, not currently.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? As there was not a preexisting article, YES!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Discusses her life clearly.
 * How can the content added be improved? What did she research?