User:Vkberndt/Bonnie Bassler/Scmccray18 Peer Review

Peer review Of Bonnie Bassler
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
Users: Vkberndt and Aeburtner

Reviewing: Bonnie Bassler


 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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
There doesn't seem to be a set lead, but it states that there is already good background info on achievements and awards, but not on research. With that said, just from reading the sandbox, I'm not sure who she is.

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 "in detail" part of the research is very relative content and is easy to follow. I wouldn't say that there's anything there that doesn't belong as it all content that's important to the article, but I do think that there can be more added to it, but I also know that this is just a draft.

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
They did a really good job at this. Nothing sounds bias or in favor of anything. The content was just factual.

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
All sources that are linked in text and cited at the bottom work and appear reliable. All were current ti the date in which the research was conducted making the source reliable.

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 sentences were well written and I have no grammatical or spelling errors to note. The Content was easy to follow. I would say I would make the topics "Bassler's Research" and "Bassler's Research 'In Detail'" one topic on the actual article so that all of the research is found in one area.

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
There are no images in the sandbox, but they stated that there's plenty of good ones on the existing article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A not a new article

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
Overall it is a really good start. The only suggestions I have are making the research one topic and maybe explain or hyperlink the definition of the harder "scientific" terms that others might not understand.