User:Zeeshaan Chunawala/Paul Hugh Emmett/BiancaSkelton 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? Joseph Oldam, Zeeshaan Chunawala
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zeeshaan Chunawala/Paul Hugh Emmett

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. It is much more detailed and focuses on the importance of Paul Hugh Emmett rather than just saying that he's an American chemist.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The article provided a skeleton for this page and the draft builds upon that by using the same lead sentence and then elaborating upon it.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think you could use a bit more to go on his achievements for your 'Honors and Awards' section. You say that he's done work at many places but a simple statement that he's received awards for his work would do well to set up for this section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all good here.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and well-written. Overall very well done.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything is relevant to Paul Hugh Emmett.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is as up-to-date as it can be, considering that the topic died in 1985. I would look into his achievements and see if any of his research has been used in more recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can see from reading it, all bases seem to be covered.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, there are no opinion terms used throughout the draft.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all topics covered seem to be objective. If there are any faults of his, I think they would be nice to include in order to add a bit more balance, keeping in mind that there may not be any.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not much to go off of in regards to his 'Death and Legacy' section, but that may be due to lack of resources to find about him. It would be nice to know a bit more about the Catalysis Society of North America that recognizes him.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it's not persuasive at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of it is, but I noticed that the first sentence in the Personal section does not have a source and is not common knowledge. It could use one.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, especially the interview with him (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed055p248) which is a unique source that otherwise wouldn't have come up.
 * Are the sources current? As current as they can be, again considering his death being so long ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work BUT some are cited improperly, as shown by the red warnings at the bottom of the page. Revisit those.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, all of the writing is well done and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it seems to be all grammatically correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, this was actually the first thing I noticed about the draft. It's broken up well in a way where I can pinpoint exactly what I'm looking for. Very well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one photo of him next to the title of the page, very general and well placed.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, with general background about the topic.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it's through Wikipedia Commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? As there's only one and it's placed in a position where photos for a person would be placed, yes. I don't think there's any better way to put it.

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? Yes, considering that the original article is completely a stub. You added valuable information about Paul Hugh Emmett and gave him good recognition. It is far more complete with greatly better quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added covers most if not all important sections to the career of Paul Hugh Emmett and his contributions to science. It's got great organization and clearly outlines sections of his life and work.
 * How can the content added be improved? It could use a bit more on his struggles (if any) and his life, bearing in mind that this is not of utmost importance, and his work is the most notable part of his life.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this draft is really good. His research is laid out in a navigable way and is far more cohesive than the preexisting article. The sources used are great to add to the article, as they include many small yet interesting details about Emmett's life. His personal life section is short and has one part that is not cited, and it would be nice to know a little bit more about this and how it impacted him as a chemist and a researcher, branching out a little bit. You've done a great job in giving Emmett the recognition on Wikipedia that he has not had! Well done.