User:Wikieditbiz/User:Wikieditbiz/Mary L. Gray (Anthropologist)/T&C-Owl4 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

 * Wikieditbiz
 * User:Wikieditbiz/Mary L. Gray (Anthropologist)

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 lead paragraph is great however, the opening sentence should give a broad overview of the individual; briefly stating her education, occupations, and other endeavors. The only thing I would also rearranging the list of occupations. I was caught of-guard by seeing "Fellow at Harvard University". However this may be because I was unfamiliar with the term "Fellow" and it's meaning in the context of Harvard. May either give a short description of this honor or make the word "Fellow" a hyperlink that leads to the page explaining what it is. (Harvard Society of Fellows). As far as rearranging the occupations list, I would start with stating that she is senior researcher at Microsoft or author or professor of media at Indiana University. Expand upon what you stated in the lead in the body paragraph.

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 content added is relevant to the topic. The content is up-to-date. There is still a lot of content missing from the body such as details education as well as her other endeavorers.

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 content is neutral and does not prove to be biased towards or against the subject. The content does not purposely persuade the reader. It is only to inform. As I had stated before and later on that there is some content missing and that the sources used are biased towards the subject due to being written by the subject.

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 three links work and lead to currently relevant sites. All sources are thorough in discussing the subject. However all three of these are considered "primary" or "first-party" sources. Meaning that they were written by either Gray herself or Michelle Triant (her publicity manager). In the case of using Microsoft as a source may or may not also apply because as Dr. Shaw had said, articles from companies about their employees is PR talk.

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
I had read through the article several times and have not spotted any grammar/spelling errors. I assume that more information will be added in the future and will also be split up into sections (e.g Publications, Career, Education, etc). The information presented so far is well-organized and easy to follow along with. The message is clear and concise. I admire that you gave a short description for each publication and is something I should do for my author's page.

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
{Not Applicable}

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
As I had stated before the sources listed here do not comply with Wikipedia's Notability policy. The article does not provide hyperlinks to other articles. The article does do a good job of presenting the information in an identical method to other wikipedia articles. The phrasing and the timing is almost perfect. As I had stated earlier, it jsut needs to be touched up and expanded upon.

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, this is an excellent start to an article. The article excels at presenting the information in a concise and easy-to-comprehend way. I understand that it is difficult to find secondary sources for an article on a person like this. The next steps would be to present more information on this individual and break the information into subcategories.