User:Legacyleft/Benjamin Neale/Snitikins 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)
 * Legacyleft
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Legacyleft/Benjamin Neale

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * NA
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the lead contains a strong first sentence about who Benjamin Neale is
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not. The article is missing headings and an overall organizing structure
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Eh, there's not really a separate lead section. Information about his current occupation isn't repeated elsewhere in the piece
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is about his research and is very relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yep all the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article is missing content on Benjamin Neale's personal life
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I trust you have worked with our professor on this, I'm less clear about it

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The tone is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There does not appear to be strong bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I am aware of
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yep, sourcing is good
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Seems good to me
 * Are the sources current?
 * Current and up to date
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * This one less so, it seems like lots of the sources are coming from Neale or his institutions
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yep they all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I find the content a little technical and some of the sentence structure a little difficult to follow. This isn't an essay, it's a wikipedia page, its ok for the sentences to be boring if they get the point across clearly.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It would be helpful if the content were divided into sections by topic

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * NA
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * This is a tough one. I think so, but I'm honestly no expert on wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are multiple sources, but they are all pretty strongly connected to the subject, so I'm not sure they count. Still, he certainly seems notable to me.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I haven't done my own research, but the list seems pretty good. If more information about his personal is available, I would include that
 * 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?
 * An infobox with some info about the scientist would be nice, doesn't have to be as extensive, but see the example of the infobox on the righthand side of this page- Walter Gilbert- I picked a random scientist
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * There are currently no article links
 * There are currently no article links

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The length and content of the article is strong, just needs some aesthetic modifications
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * As a biography of Benjamin Neale's research, the work done here is excellent and comprehensive.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This reads more like an essay than a wikipedia page. Spend some time jazzing it up, adding headings and links, etc..
 * Make the content dryer and more direct in certain places