User:SSalley2022/Lisa Ng/Eguest-clemson 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? SSalley2022
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Lisa Ng

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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is too concise. There are no details

Lead evaluation
The lead needs to be expanded along with the whole article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I don't believe content has been added. However, all content currently in the article is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * More current information could be added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't a lot of information. The biography could be expanded to talk about her early life. The article could also include more information about her awards and about her research.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes. It is about a women in science.

Content evaluation
The current content is good. However, much more content needs to be added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. All content is neutral.
 * 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 of the article is appropriate.

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?
 * More sources could be added as more information is added to the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No. The most recent source is from 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * References 2 and 4 both do not work.

Sources and references evaluation
More references need to be added as more information is added to the article. In addition, the 2 broken sources need to be fixed or replaced.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. There could be some editing for clarity though.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There aren't enough sections for me to really answer this questions.

Organization evaluation
Overall, it just needs minor editing for clarity/

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Maybe add pictures if possible

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?
 * I don't believe there are many (if any) edits yet (at least visible to me).
 * What are the strengths of the article?
 * The current information provided is good with very few grammatical errors.
 * How can the content be improved?
 * Minor editing and more content overall.

Overall evaluation
More needs to be added, some minor editing for clarity is needed, and the sources needed to be updated and repaired.