User:SadieAbboud/Louise L. Sloan/Joseph Oldam 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)
 * Gkim70 and SadieAbboud
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:SadieAbboud/Louise L. Sloan

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes it certainly has, before the article was nothing but a tiny lead and now it is fully developed with the main points of Sloan's life such as where she received her PhD, when she worked for Hopkins, and other main points about her life that belong in a lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence states her birth and death dates and states clearly that she was an American ophthalmologist t and vision scientist, which I believe provides a good preview into the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it mentions her main career, number of scientific publications, important moments in her life, certain programs she founded, and some awards which are all later talked about much more deeply in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the information in the lead is elaborated later on in the article in their respective sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I believe the lead is concise and picks important moments in Sloan's life and is not too overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content added is certainly relevant to the topic since it is all about Dr. Sloan.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, I believe the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is not much information in the Personal Life section of Sloan's article, that information is missing since it may have been looked over or there just isn't any public knowledge on that source.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Most of the content that was added is neutral however, the first sentence of the "Research and Publications" section states that Dr. Sloan "greatly" contributed to the scientific community which may show an underlying tone of bias. Other than this, the rest of the content appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I did not see such claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe the viewpoint based on her career overall may be slightly underrepresented since the article does not go into much detail about what her actual role as the director of the Wilmer Eye institution was . Her personal life is also heavily underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it just seems to talk about Sloan's life.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the references provided seem to be reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they certainly reflect the available literature on the topic and seem to cover a variety of different topics and ideas, which makes me think that they are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are older such as reference #4 which is from 1983 but other than that, the other sources seem current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is not overly intricate and is stated very factually, contributing to the neutral tone of course.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I have noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections are very well organized and do not go all over the place.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article shows a picture with Sloan letters that seem to enhance the understanding of the topic since that section writes to describe the letters and it pairs well with the picture showing the actual letters. There is also a nice picture of Sloan receiving an award that was not there before.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, it was a simple picture so it just had a simple caption that fits well. The image with her receiving the reward also states what award it was which was nice.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are presented in the appropriate areas of the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Absolutely, the difference between the two is night and day. It went from a small paragraph (barely) to becoming a much more developed article with sections and a good background on Sloan's life.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Certainly much more information covering a much larger span of topics of Sloan's life and research.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There could be improvements by adding more information to the Personal life section or if there is no more, than perhaps by getting rid of the section entirely and just adding in that one sentence somewhere else such as in Early Life.