User:Mbenja/Malika Jeffries-EL/SMC2021 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) Mbenja
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mbenja/Malika Jeffries-EL

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, she goes into some detail about her research.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the sections are split up and clearly defined.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, she started to write a notable publications section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. The information is brief and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Just filling in the notable publications section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no bias towards the scientist, all information is written in a neutral tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The information is well represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

For New Articles Only
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. It gave more context into the scientist's life and provided more information about her career.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It made it easier to understand who the scientist was.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more notable publications and maybe more awards if applicable.