User:SSalley2022/Lisa Ng/Gdegidi 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) 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 updates
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but lead sentence can be greatly improved
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No because article lacks sections minus a short biography and references
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? not complete, needs more information

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, references from 2015 to recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes; content about her personal life, education, career, research, and awards are all missing
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes; Women Scientists

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, no claims have been made
 * 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? no, much more content and references needed
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no; many more references are needed
 * Are the sources current? Yes, from 2015 to present
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources available thus far are diverse but limited
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Clicked on 3 of the 6 references and they worked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Not very well-written; only 3-4 sentences thus ar
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no grammatical or spelling errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? so far the content is organized but needs to be greatly expanded upon; major points of the topic are not reflected

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? no
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

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? Not very exhaustive
 * 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? NO, all of these aspects should be added
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article links to molecular virology and a few other links

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article needs to be greatly improved
 * What are the strengths of the content added? very basic introduction
 * How can the content added be improved? lots of content gaps; much room for improvement in this article!