User:ShaoniD/Helen B. Taussig/Barber9 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? (ShaoniD)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ShaoniD/Helen B. Taussig

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * One is currently provided on the original article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * 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, information in the lead is is expanded in the following sections
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise and covers main points regarding Taussig

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the newly added content updates more information on her early life and career and collaborations
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * While Taussig is no longer alive, more relevant information about her is provided.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. The "new" collaboration section adds important details about her life

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. No opinions presented
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. Only facts are included
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * In the original article there was limited to no information on the collaborations that Taussig was involved with. This updated article provides more content on this topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. Only facts and general information are provided

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?
 * Yes, multiple platforms used
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some within the last 5 years, some from early 2000s
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There are no links provided

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content flows smoothly
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None seen
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. the information is logically organized

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?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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?
 * New sections have been added as well as updated information
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * An entirely new section about collaborations is added
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think this update overall improves the original article

Overall evaluation
Multiple beneficial updates to the original article have been added and contribute to making the article of greater strength and quality.