User:Kemorri/Maria Grazia Spillantini/CaitlynOwen Peer Review

General info
(Kemorri)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Maria Grazia Spillantini

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, my peer has not edited the Lead of this article. However, the original article does have a lead that introduces the scientist and lists some of her most noteworthy achievements.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead immediately lets the reader know what the article is about and why they have a Wikipedia page about them.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's significant sections?
 * The Lead does introduce the section on her career and research but not on her education.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything in the Lead is mentioned again in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise at only three sentences long, but it still does an excellent job of introducing the page and leading into the rest of the information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The student didn't use this page for their project, so no new content was added. However, the original content is primarily relevant to the topic, including the universities Spillantini attended, her degrees, her jobs, and a broad overview of her research. However, there is an irrelevant section about an interview she did for a fellowship.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No, the most recent source used for the page is from 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The page needs details about Spillantini's awards and honors. There is a list of some on the side, but more information should be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article discusses a female scientist addressing an underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there are no opinions in the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, only facts are presented.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are no specific viewpoints in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is factual and does not try to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content relies too much on primary sources and could benefit from adding more secondary sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the information presented does match the source attached.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The author should add sources from different platforms to improve this page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources providing information about her education and career are current, but the sources on her research and achievements need to be updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, most sources are written by the scientist, making them all primary sources.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes, I found many secondary sources on Spillantini that the author should have included.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the information is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The author should have capitalized more words and included necessary commas.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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 images included.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * No new content was added to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article's strengths are the conciseness of the information and a solid overview of important information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This content can be improved by adding information from secondary sources, fixing grammatical errors, adding images, and expanding on the research and honors sections.