User:Mmedich01/Fabiola Gianotti/Mbenja 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? Mmedich01
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mmedich01/Fabiola Gianotti

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I would change the intro sentence to more clearly describe who she is. (I think you should start by saying that she is a particle physicist at CERN.) Also in the current first sentence I think you should say "Fabiola Gianotti has a Ph.D....". "She has spent". I am a little unsure of what was added by the author and what was on the original wikipedia page. I think your lead section should be elaborated on a little bit to include some more information that is relevant to the article in the other sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
From what I can tell the content added is relevant and up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the career at CERN section seems a little off...I'm not sure that I would include all of the questions that CERN tries to address, but rather I would rephrase it so they were not questions. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in one way or the other. It is written neutrally.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
All content added has a citation that is reliable. From what I can tell, the sources are current. The links that I clicked work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
There are a few grammatical errors, so make sure you go back through and read it to catch them (I pointed out a few in the lead section). Also, read through it to make sure that it flows well. I like the addition of the Career at CERN section.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
This article contains no photos, however I would suggest adding a photo of Fabiola Gianotti.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Great work! I was a little bit confused on the contributions that you made vs what was already there, so in the future it may be beneficial to do all of your editing on this sandbox page rather than copying and pasting from another page. I really like (what I presume to be) the addition of the Career at CERN section. I think that it highlights well some notable points in herlife. As mentioned before, make sure you read through and make sure it flows well.