User:Zeeshaan Chunawala/Paul Hugh Emmett/Dlu16 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? (Zeeshaan Chunawala, Joseph Oldam)
 * 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?
 * The lead has been updated to expand upon Paul Hugh Emmett past his career (adding a description about his major accomplishments and notable positions and affiliations)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, gives a concise and succinct description of the subject and what they were.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead includes a description of his education (biography), research
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There are some additional details as it pertains to his career and education that could be omitted, but for the most part it is concisely worded.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead gives a good description of who Paul Hugh Emmett is (American chemist that worked on the Manhattan Project and catalysis) and some of his affiliations. However, the section:

"Emmett, Stephen Brunauer, and Edward Teller published the BET Theory which explains the relationship between surface area and gas adsoprtion. After receiving his PhD from the California Institute of Technology, Emmett conducted adsorption and catalysis research at the Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1937, he became a professor at Johns Hopkins University, setting up the chemical engineering department.

In 1943, Emmett joined the Manhattan Project at Columbia University under Harold Urey. He spearheaded the research to separate isotopes of uranium and to develop a corrosive uranium gas. He returned to Johns Hopkins in 1955 and remained there until the end of his career in 1971. During his later years, Emmett was a visiting faculty member at Portland State University and remained an active and influential voice in the catalysis field of chemistry."

Seems like it's ripped from the biography section (particularly in the career section). This section could omit "Emmett, Stephen Brunauer, and Edward Teller published the BET Theory which explains the relationship between surface area and gas adsoprtion. After receiving his PhD from the California Institute of Technology, Emmett conducted adsorption and catalysis research at the Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1937, he became a professor at Johns Hopkins University, setting up the chemical engineering department." as this information feels overly specific and not as important as his major work on catalysis, uranium, and the Manhattan Project. This information is fine to have the biography, but it seems somewhat out of place in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, includes a brief overview of his major research topics, career, death, legacy, and a comprehensive list of his achievements/accolades
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, as up-to-date as it needs to be
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
Overall, the content added greatly enhances my learning on who Emmett was and his contributions to the world through nuclear chemistry. In particular, the research section and carrier section provide a more in depth view of Emmett's notability as a person. The added content feels relevant and well needed when compared to the original article. The draft greatly expands upon multiple different aspects of Emmett's life such that the article feels more complete and comprehensive (evolved from a stub to a B-C class article). The only thing I might question is the "personal life" section. I'm not sure if that content is needed (and the Linus Pauling detail is redundant as we can find this information in the education subheading).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the diction used remains neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The diction used remains neutral, and keeps the portrayal of Emmett as a notable figure in history as opposed to a deity or a monster. All of the added content is written in an objective, factual manner, and there are no clear or definite "sides" being taken here. The Manhattan Project itself can potentially be controversial, but the way Emmett's contributions and involvement with the project is written is factual and objective (this was handled quite well).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, not really, but some of the sources used are from Emmett's publications (1920s) which wouldn't be current by today's standards. Others for biographical information are from the 1980s-1990s which might not be the best, but for obituary information, it would make sense for the time period. There are two sources from the mid to late 2010s (2016, 2017)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all of the links work

Sources and references evaluation
All the links work, and the sources used come from reputable places. All of the content added and other claims/statements have inline citations. Overall, the sources and references used are relevant to Emmett, and they reinforce the claims and statements presented in the draft.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "gas adsoprtion." that's probably the only one I could find
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
The organization of the biographical information is great (especially when looking at the original article) as the early life, career, and death and legacy sections layout this information in a coherent and chronological manner. I would say that the personal life section could either be integrated into the death and legacy/early life sections or removed altogether. The research section is laid out well; all of the relevant research topics are appropriately placed in their own subheadings. Overall, the organization is quite strong and coherent.

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? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? maybe, not sure if the image is copyrighted or need permission from Brookner Studios
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yeah

Images and media evaluation
The image provided has good resolution and clarity. The portrait is easy to find online.

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? greater depth and breadth of topics covered, organized in a coherent fashion, well-backed by references
 * How can the content added be improved? there might be some redundant information (mainly just the personal life section)

Overall evaluation
The article is a major improvement on the original start class article. The provided image of Emmett gives a good visual connection between the information provided and the actual person. The organization of the content is laid out very logically and is very easy to follow. Most of the content added enhances learning and knowledge gained about Emmett. There are some redundant sections/content in the draft, but overall this draft is very well written and comprehensive.