User:Meticulousonion/Bila M. Kapita/InnocentSplit 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? Meticulousonion
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Meticulousonion/Bila M. Kapita

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, a lead is present / space has been allocated for a general introduction. It is currently a bit brief and does not necessarily address the topic as thoroughly as I think it maybe should however I believe this is largely because the author is still drafting the article and will add more later on.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The lead sentence describes the researcher, where they are from, where they did their work, what it was on, and when.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, however there is a table of contents included which lists various different sections. I believe that they may add more information on this as they continue to finish their article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The lead currently sticks to the main important themes presented later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the author tracks the life and work of the researcher in a meaningful manner.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes; the information added to this point appears to be up to date and valid.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content is still in progress however it appears that, based on the outline present at the end of the sandbox, the article will be very complete in its content. It appears that some information is being cross-checked at the moment, however assuming the information present is checked to be correct across other sources, I feel as though this article does a good job conveying the necessary content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. The author maintains a balanced and neutral tone throughout the piece. [S]he presents the information biographically and without slant.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. It appears that the author has neutrally tracked the life and work of Bila M. Kapita. I do not believe that any particular section is abnormally represented. Perhaps there is not much information on the early life of Kapita however this is likely due to lack of published information on the subject.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. The article does not particularly present controversial viewpoints. Rather, the article focuses on presenting a life's story / work of a researcher and thus I do not believe viewpoints are over represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. As stated above, the information presented in the article does not lead to a sense of persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not yet, however when it is not "backed up" it is clearly marked that a source needs to be put in. As such, I believe that the author has every intention to do so and likely knows the source that belongs in the citation however has not yet had the chance to insert it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * This is hard to tell at the moment as the article is not complete however it appears that the author is using reputable and relatively recent secondary sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Most of the sources currently cited are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I checked appear to work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is very well-written and I believe that the organization style + mechanics of a table of contents is very helpful (I plan to add one to my article!)
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any glaring errors. A few areas are a bit choppy however this is because the author appears to be in the process of organizing information.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! I was very impressed with the organizational framework and I intend to employ similar mechanics, such as a table of contents, in my work.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images present
 * 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?
 * It does appear that the researcher in question was discussed in both AIDS at 30: A History and No Time to Lose, both secondary sources, indicating notability.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Not yet exhaustive however this is because the work is still in progress.
 * 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, I believe that the article employs many standard patterns of biographical articles and uses a good organizational framework as discussed earlier.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes! They have a "see also" section.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it appears that this article is progressing very well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The organizational structure is very clear and easy to follow and it appears that the writer has a clear plan of action in terms of executing the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think this article has all the workings of an excellent Wikipedia piece but just needs to be polished off / completed! Great job :)

==== Overall evaluation: Great job! I am really impressed with how this is looking and think I will take inspiration from your organizational techniques. I think one easy way to continue to improve is to add pictures. ====