User:Mellizzia/Marion Campbell (archaeologist)/ShanHassan 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) ShanHassan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Marion Campbell (archaeologist)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No new content has been added to the Lead of the article. Lead seems to be quite under-developed as of right now. I would suggest maybe adding some additional information: perhaps briefly mentioning some of Marion Campbell's most notable accomplishments (specifically) which could be discussed later in the article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead is composed of two sentences which vaguely describe who Marion Campbell was and some of her various occupations. Although from the lead I understand that the article will be talking about Marion Campbell, I feel that it can be expanded upon in some ways: it could include Campbell's most aspiring accomplishments
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I wouldn't say the Lead provides a "brief description"... it more just mentions what the topics of the article will be but doesn't give any detail (you could add these descriptions to the Lead)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information in the Lead is included in the article, however the information seems to be in its slightest form (there's a bare minimum amount of information for each occupation mentioned in the Lead)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead seems to still be in the writing phase: a more formal introduction would be better

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content is relevant, however since the article is only about 2 months old, there is definitely room for more relevant information to be added
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, content is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content already existing in the article is ok, but there can be more intricate / specific content for each section of the article (ie. what was her family like, what inspired her to become all of the occupations mentioned in the Lead + throughout the article, etc.)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel the content in general is under-developed (I don't know if this answers the question or not), but as the article is added to I'm sure that viewpoints will be properly 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? As indicated in the article's talk page by the User, the article doesn't contain very reliable information sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources aren't very thorough
 * Are the sources current? Source dates range from 2000 - 2016 (so some are older, but some are more recent)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links "work", but some information doesn't track to the link it's cited to

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content added is well-written and helpful
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some run-on sentences are present in the body sections of the article (for example the "Early Life" section begins with a sentence containing 3 commas)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Only a couple sentences and sources have been added, but it adds to the section of the article it was put in

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No pictures are included in the article (however I feel doing so could greatly enhance the article )
 * 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? Number of sources is good, however the quality of the information coming from those sources, as well as how that information is being conveyed in the article (in terms of plagiarism), may not be good
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I trust that there are many more sources available for the topic, they just have to be found (and not have the information plagiarized from outside sources into the article)
 * 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? Article seems to contain all of the necessary parts for being a relatively new work
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not as of right now

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? User has added a bit of content to the article to make it better. Additionally, they indicated on the article's talk page some concerns they have about plagiarism and lack of trustworthy sources.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? See answer above
 * How can the content added be improved? Since this article is clearly a recently created one, there is much that can be improved. I would start by making sure the sources that the information is coming from are reliable (which it seems like you already have started doing). Once you find good sources, I'd remove any information you'd deem as plagiarized and replace it with your own well-supported information. I would also try to make the Lead a bit more interesting (doesn't have to be filled with content, it just seems a little shallow as of right now) by perhaps adding more descriptions as to who Marion Campbell was and add sentences introducing any new information you find and would want to include in the article .