User:Sherika2016/Lise Meitner/TeelHSCI Peer Review

Peer review
''' This is a review of information about Lise Meitner that was posted to Sherika2016's user page. '''

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? Sherika2016
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:  User:Sherika2016 (it was posted to the user page)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
The user Sherika2016 is contributing to the content section of the article rather than the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation:
The proposed additions to the education section are relevant and do a good job supplementing an important section of information for an esteemed scientist. The content is up to date. The proposed additions to the scientific career section are relevant although it may have to be in a part of the article where her professional relationship with Otto Hahn is being discussed as there is a large part of the proposed additions that have to do with Hahn, opening up the possibility of becoming off-topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation:
The proposed additions are mostly neutral. A sentence in the Scientific Career section used the superlative "extraordinary" which could be considered inappropriate depending on the context. There does not seem to be an effort to persuade the reader towards one position or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Sources and references were not included with the information. The user was unable to verify links to sources or references.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation:
The content is well-organized. The Scientific Career section is lacking some conciseness. The first sentence of the Scientific Career section has too many commas. In the middle of the same section, there are some filler sentences regarding her collaboration with Otto Hahn that could be trimmed and add to conciseness.

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:
No images or media were proposed additions by the user.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation:
The additions proposed would ultimately lead to a more complete article. The strengths would include supplementing information people are likely to care about when it comes to reading about an eminent scientist, like their education and scientific career.