User:Tyler Borschnack/Nancy Carrasco/Macylynn27 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)
 * Tyler, Megan, Erianna, Katianna
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Nancy Carrasco

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. New information gives a more detailed description on who Nancy was.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The topic is Nancy Carrasco and the introductory sentences introduces her with her titles.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a table of contents that does fine in linking the reader to the major sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything is included.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but detailed. Not too detailed though. The reader still needs to go to the body paragraphs to actually find out more information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I think the added content is relevant. Her early life and career got split up and I think this gives more room to add specific details. The original article only really mentions Nancy is a professor in the lead. The changes are updated to reflect her research and career. Adding in her published works was good too.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date, with the oldest source being from 2015 and the most recent being 2019. If possible, is the date of her marriage known? The year that she got married is not included in the personal life section.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As mentioned above it could be relevant to add the year that Nancy got married. Also, maybe some of her published works could be expanded on. Maybe say why they're important to mention. Also, I cannot find where her birthday is mentioned. Based on this article I am not sure how old she is. Although there is an early life section, there is very little mentioned on her life before her research and schooling.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. All added content is factual
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All viewpoints are evenly represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The authors only write in an informative tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. The new information came from institutions such as Harvard, academic journals, or .org websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. They range from 2015-2019
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Every link I checked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?\
 * Yes. The content is rather formal but not too wordy. However, this sentence, "While there, the Kaback's team discovered that the use of lactose permease to find the presence of E. Coli which forms into the Proteliposomes which where functionally." Didn't make much sense to me.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I think there is are some unnecessary commas in the first paragraph. As well as commas to add in the early life section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized and easy to locate.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- '''There are no images. Maybe you could add a picture of Nancy?'''


 * 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?

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?
 * The article is definitely getting closer to completion. There are things to add but it is definitely better than the previous article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content informs more on who Nancy was and what kind of research she did. It also leads readers to the works she has published which is also helpful to understanding who she was.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think it can just be improved if it was expanded on a little more. Maybe add more to her personal life and early life. The whole article focuses mostly on her work and research.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the new article is coming together nicely!