User:Tina W Raad/Dr. Joseph F. Poland/Katiejill127 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Christina Wickeraad, username Tina W Raad


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tina%20W%20Raad/Dr._Joseph_F._Poland?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * It does not exist yet, but there is a Joseph F Poland, and it's a different person.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. Tina, I might say something like, "Dr. Joseph Fairfield Poland (1908-1991) was an American hydrogeologist who founded the study of land subsidence."
 * 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, it's perfect.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * This is a concise and well-written lead. Well done, Tina.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Absolutely.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Somewhat, as the subject has passed away.
 * Tina, I think it could be nice to add a sentence about how the telephone poll photo has impacted hydrogeologic fields and is still used today.
 * Tina, I think you might be missing some helpful context in the "Current Influence on Hydrogeologic and Geologic Research" section, about how the USGS is continuing to research subsidence, and to introduce your quote from UNESCO. Also change Sierra Nevada 's -> Sierra Nevada. Trust me on this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I notice. However, Tina, it will help your article a lot to add inline links to other Wikipedia pages. Like land subsidence or groundwater. Let me know if you want me to show you how to do it.
 * Tina, you're missing a citation or two for the Biography section and for the UNESCO quote in the last section, and there's an unfinished sentence at the end of the Land Subsidence section. It's perfect after these edits.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Actually, I think it does. While Dr. Joseph F. Poland is a white male, the author of the article written about him is by a female student, Christina Wickeraad, so this is increasing the representation of female authorship on Wikipedia. Also, the topic of land subsidence has disparate impact to disadvantaged communities, and Dr. Poland's pioneering of the topic ultimately helps support those at greatest risk from drinking water shortages.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. It's well-written and inoffensive.
 * 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?
 * Nearly everything. I mentioned above where there are a couple sources missing. Other than that there are good secondary sources listed.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes. These sources are excellent.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they're great. Not only for Joseph Poland but for his research.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm don't know if I find this question relevant. Tina's sources are great and I can't speak to historically marginalized authorship on this topic.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Tina selected authoritative sources such as websites and publications from notable public agencies.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. It is good and the subtopics are logical. Tina, make sure that you're highlighting your section headings and selecting the dropdown for Heading, and so on.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it looks good to me. I only note the sentence fragment, "Measured with extensometer" at the bottom of the Land Subsidence section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Honestly, it could possibly have a better caption, but I don't think it's an item owned by Tina so I'm not sure whether or not she could change that. And the image links to https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/ where there is an excellent caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think so, but I'm not an expert on this. The image directly links to https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/ where it is in the public domain. I don't know whether this photo has a copyright or not.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think it looks good.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I'm sure there are more sources out there, but Tina's are great. Books and websites from authoritative sources on the topic of Land Subsidence and hydrogeology. However, her article is biographical, and I'm not sure that there are very many sources directly regarding Dr. Poland. So her list seems sufficiently exhaustive at the moment. Maybe someday there will be more sources about Dr. Poland himself, but for the time being she found a great deal of biographical information from authoritative sources about hydrogeology and subsidence, and that is great work.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No, but I already recommended to Tina in a previous question to go through her article and add these inline links. Once she does that I think her article will look a lot more "final draft" and ready to publish!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * This is a new article and I think it helps improve Wikipedia nicely.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * As a pioneer of the study of land subsidence, Dr. Poland deserves an article written about him on Wikipedia, and the article Tina wrote does him a great honor. Now when students and adults are learning about subsidence they can also learn about one of the founders of this area of research.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I mentioned a couple of notes above, such as adding inline links and a couple additional citations. Once Tina does that, I think her content is ready to publish.