User:Ruby00269/Point estimation/BasilNotCilantro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Reviewing the work of Rubyoo269.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Here is the link to their sandbox.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Here is the link to their chosen article on point estimation.

Lead

 * Introductory sentence does give a concise description
 * Provides a brief description, but because the main body of the article covers the Bayesian application, it technically covers more than what the article currently encompasses.

Content

 * Additional content that should be included are mentioned in the introduction such as:
 * confidence distributions and randomized estimators
 * Content seems thoroughly cited
 * Not a topic that can be further improved for equity in representation

Tone and Balance

 * Neutral in tone, article currently does not present strong opinions or biases
 * Imbalance in the article attributed to lack of content in different methods of point estimators.

Sources and References

 * References are listed under the 'notes' section, double check if that is the appropriate heading
 * References seem outdated, none listed are from the past decade
 * References that are present do seem reputable though
 * Links in general are functional

Organization

 * Content present does seem clear and concisely written
 * No spelling or grammatical errors noted
 * Content is organized for the amount that is present, however some bulleted lists present could be made into their own sections.

Images and Media

 * No images present in the article
 * Can find images in the listed sources that can support explanations of the idea
 * Can include an image for the lead section and for parts of the main body section
 * Ensure the images help to explain rather than over complicate the concept.

Overall Impressions

 * The article itself has much room for improvement by inputting more content in general, images, and updating the resources. Currently it has good tone and shows a lack of bias, so continuing this style of writing would work well for the article.