User:Rosslocascio22/Fred Jablin/Lmlaux 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)  Rosslocascio22, Cfreeman444
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Fred Jablin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Lead evaluation
N/A

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?
 * Missing content but no content that doesn't belong

Content evaluation
The page is missing content for early life, education, research, and death/legacy, but the main summary of assimilation is good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is perfect. Everything is presented from a neutral standpoint and without opinion or persuasion.

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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Besides a few missing commas, no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the "Works in the Field" section is well-organized and they have a plan for a lead, but some are missing

Organization evaluation
The organization that's already there is great, so I know that once they have more information on the page it'll appropriately be broken down into sections that fit.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes- user's own image and one from a Congressional library of works for educational use
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, I like that Jablin's photo is first

Images and media evaluation
The images used are really strong and add to 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?
 * Yes, I think it definitely meets notability.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A, there aren't sources yet but Jablin is fairly well-known so I don't think finding sources will be an issue
 * 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?
 * I think it's prepared to. It has photos, a plan for an introduction, and a section on his main contribution.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No

New Article Evaluation
This article has the potential to be well done, and I think it will in due time. What has been done so far is well done.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * N/A, this is a draft article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The information about assimilation and the images are strengths.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It needs more sections (such as early life, education, career, research, and death/legacy), sources, and links to other Wikipedia pages, but what's there so far looks good!

Overall evaluation
This is a great topic and I was surprised it didn't have a page yet, so I think it's a good choice. The images are great and well-placed and the paragraph about his main notability/achievement is very well-written and complete. It is missing some important parts but once they're added I think it'll be great!