User:Paigevinch/Ronald J. Daniels/Cpantelis1 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)
 * Paige Vinch
 * Renee Liu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Ronald J. Daniels

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peers. While they maintained the majority of the information for this section, they included more relevant pieces of information regarding him serving as the chair of the executive committee of Johns Hopkins Medicine and his comprehensive plan for the future.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does this by combining information from the main article's first two introductory sentence and maintains the main information they need to convey. This information being that Ronald Daniels is the president of Johns Hopkins and will be serving until 2024.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead of the article does do this because it provides only a single sentence for each sentence without getting any deeper that just introducing the section. Also, these brief introductions for the main sections only give a large detail that they can build off of later in the piece.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead maintains the integrity of the article as it incorporates everything that is stated into the remaining parts of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, I feel the Lead is concise in its points, even though it has a decent amount of information. I think they did a good job to maintain the the integrity of keeping only the main points of the article and providing only a brief introduction to these points.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. This is because they added information that was applicable to Ronald Daniels' presidency and what he has achieved. They have divided sub sections based on his work as president and the information that follows these subsections is all relevant to his presidency.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date. This because the sources they gathered their information from are as recent as 2020. The majority of their information they gathered comes from sources and projects within his term of presidency.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In my opinion, they did not have any information that did not belong. The information they included was all relevant to president Ronald Daniels.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I feel the overall article has a neutral tone to it. However, I feel the topic sentences of the subsections Financial Aid Efforts and Need-Blind and Legacy Policies could be looked as boosting his character. Those would be the only parts of the article that would draw any attention to bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I did not see any claims in the article that could be taken with bias because all of the claims they make are statements of what Ronald Daniels has done as president.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I did not see any viewpoints that were overrepresented or underrepresented. However, some subsections contained a little more information than others. This should not be an issue because the difference in amount of information is not too large that it takes away from a subsection.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is purely stated to illustrate what Ronald Daniels has done or is doing as the president of Johns Hopkins. All of their statements are backed by facts, statistics, or listings of what he is doing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, their content is backed by reliable sources. For example the majority of their information is taken from .edu or .org websites
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources they gathered information all reflect the work of his presidency.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current as they reflect content as recent as 2020 and other projects that Dnaiels organized throughout his term as president.
 * a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work
 * links that were tried:
 * "Why We Ended Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins"
 * "Hopkins President, Wife Establish Fund for First-Generation College Students"
 * "It's the job of colleges to train citizens, but we're failing"

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content was written well and stylistically was easy to read. The set up of the subsections made his achievements and work as president easier to comprehend as well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content added does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. However, there are some stylistic changes that could be implemented to remove any possible source of bias. Overall, the grammar and spelling looks good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is well-organized. I feel the extra divsion added amongst subsections makes it easier for readers to comprehend the information regarding his presidency. Also the addition of the section regarding his current affiliations makes it easier to put the extraneous information in a section, rather than breaking down into smaller and smaller subsections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * They are keeping the picture of Ronald Daniels from the current article. I feel maybe another picture could be added to enhance it, but the content mainly contributes to his work as president. So, I feel that the image of him suffices.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image they retain does not have a caption, rather it has other basic information regarding Ronald Daniels. In my opinion I don't think this picture needs a caption because it is only a still image of him smiling at the camera and there is really nothing to caption the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because it was already found to be on the current Wikipedia page. I also found the image to be found on the Wikimedia Commons page, so it is available to the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, it is blown up in the big information box off to the side of the text in the article.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the added content improves the overall completeness of the article because the current article does not comprise of nearly enough information regarding his work as a president. Their additions (all of the subsections) makes it much easier to comprehend all of the added information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the added content is that it further informs the reader about Ronald Daniels' work as a president and the things he plans to do. The current article has this however it is limited into what it illustrates. Also, I think the re-organization of the article into component sub-sections allows for the readers to better understand the material with titles regarding what they are reading.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added could be improved by eliminating any source of bias. The possible places were mentioned before, but overall this article was well written. I felt the content itself was informative and they don't need to add anything regarding the information about Daniels.
 * The content added could be improved by eliminating any source of bias. The possible places were mentioned before, but overall this article was well written. I felt the content itself was informative and they don't need to add anything regarding the information about Daniels.