User:Stacy.johnson515/Dalene Matthee/Stacy.johnson515 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Dalene Matthee


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead is concise and describes the topic of the article. It is not overly detailed, but briefly talks about her works.

Content: The content includes Matthee's published works chronologically. Everything that is written seems to be relevant and a good representation Dalene's life. There could be variety among just stating her works.

Tone and Balance: The tone is neutral, stating her works and accomplishments. There isn't anything that seems to be persuasive.

Sources and References: One of the sources are from Matthee's website, which is informational, but could be biased. The 2nd source isn't written in English. The 3rd source was also from Matthee's website. There wasn't much variety in the sources. All of the sources were from 2018. A good thing is that all of the links work.

Organization: The content is organized and easy to read. From what is written, it is well put together and representative.

Media and Images: The article contains no images.

Overall Impressions: Strengths of the article include being well organized, concise, and neutral. There can be a more information added about her life, works, and legacy. A weakness would be the lack of sources, making the article not very credible.


 * None of the sources appear to be reliable secondary sources... They're not from 2018, they were retrieved in that year. None of the paragraphs have a footnote to indicate where that information came from. The article may well be neutral, but it is very, very poor in terms of being verified, and I wish you had commented more clearly on that. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)