User:NickMcCo/Raymond L. Erikson/CJessica Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? NickMcCo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:NickMcCo/Raymond_L._Erikson
 * Link to the current version of the article: Raymond L. Erikson

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead appears to be under the subheading "Overview." It should probably be separated at the top of the page.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead is very concise and introduces the topic well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not reference the personal life section, but does introduce the other sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise and easy to read.
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise and easy to read.
 * The Lead is very concise and easy to read.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added provides more details on his childhood and collegiate/career experience. It also provides more depth into his scientific discoveries.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content specifically updated his date of death which is more current (2020)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The date of death is mentioned but no further details are given surrounding this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The date of death is mentioned but no further details are given surrounding this.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no biased claims that I could see in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't believe there are any viewpoints overrepresented or underrepresented in this article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No attempt to persuade the reader was made.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No attempt to persuade the reader was made.
 * No attempt to persuade the reader was made.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are lots of sources cited throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources reflect a variety of press releases, articles, journals, and books. They cover a wide range of mediums.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, there are at least three sources from 2020, indicating that the research is current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links that I clicked worked.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links that I clicked worked.
 * All of the links that I clicked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is clear and easy to read. It is concise but sometimes lack details.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical errors that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Perhaps the professional career section could be further broken down for clarity. Otherwise, the sections are well-broken down.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Perhaps the professional career section could be further broken down for clarity. Otherwise, the sections are well-broken down.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added has greatly improved this article and makes it more complete. It adds depth to the biography by detailing personal life and childhood. Additionally, it adds a scientific perspective on the career and discoveries of Erikson.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added has lots of links embedded within to help the reader gain more knowledge on the subject. It creates a clearer picture of Erikson and better details his life and career.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More details regarding his personal life and death could be added. Additionally, further separation of the professional career section could make it easier to understand for someone without a scientific background. Overall, the content added greatly improves the article and provides an abundance of new information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More details regarding his personal life and death could be added. Additionally, further separation of the professional career section could make it easier to understand for someone without a scientific background. Overall, the content added greatly improves the article and provides an abundance of new information.