User:Piepe074/Beverly Allen/Hugue008 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) Piepe074
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Beverly Allen

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I think so yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes but it could be more detailed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could use more details

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It seems so.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * 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? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think so, it is all connected to the botanical field in Australia. It could use more references but I don't think they exist.
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could use a bit more punctuation to make it easier to read but it is concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some sentences should be re-written because I think there is some words missing.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The life and education section could be reorganized : talk about her childhood, her studies, her career then her personal life even though I think it's not relevant to put it in here.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media / few pictures should be added especially because she is a painter and pictures of her can be found on the internet.


 * 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?

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? yes, it looks like it.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? We could hope for more sources but I don't think they exist.
 * 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.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes, multiple links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think she created it so yes, it's more complete than being inexistent.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Her career is thouroughly detailed.
 * How can the content added be improved? Pictures could be added.