User talk:SSalley2022

Welcome!
Hello, SSalley2022, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review from Gdegidi
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) SSalley2022 Link to draft you're reviewing: Lisa Ng Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No updates Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but lead sentence can be greatly improved Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No because article lacks sections minus a short biography and references Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? not complete, needs more information Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes Is the content added up-to-date? yes, references from 2015 to recent Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes; content about her personal life, education, career, research, and awards are all missing Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes; Women Scientists Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, no claims have been made 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 Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no, much more content and references needed Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no; many more references are needed Are the sources current? Yes, from 2015 to present Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources available thus far are diverse but limited Check a few links. Do they work? Clicked on 3 of the 6 references and they worked Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Not very well-written; only 3-4 sentences thus ar Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no grammatical or spelling errors Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? so far the content is organized but needs to be greatly expanded upon; major points of the topic are not reflected Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no Are images well-captioned? no Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no Images and media evaluation 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? Not very exhaustive 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? NO, all of these aspects should be added Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article links to molecular virology and a few other links New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article needs to be greatly improved What are the strengths of the content added? very basic introduction How can the content added be improved? lots of content gaps; much room for improvement in this article! Gdegidi (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)