User:Francescacast/Cheryl Heller/Christay817 Peer Review

Peer review

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

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- yes it has been
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- yes the topic sentence provides accurate information.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The lead expresses some of the major topics being spoken about.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No it does not
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- i think the lead is concise and to the point

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- yes it is relevant
Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes it is. There are a variety of different time frames present in the article
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- i dont see any missing content except her date of birth but that is not that relevant.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- yes there is no bias option expressed
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- not that i see
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- no everything is explained evenly
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- no everything written is very neutral and informative.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- yes there are a lot of citations provided
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I clicked on a few of the sources and from what i saw saw they were from reliable sources and websites.
Are the sources current?
- yes some of old but some are new. within the last 5 years.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes the links work. there were some that done also

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- everything is organized very nicely. there are subheadings and the information explaining the topic under it.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- there are few grammatical errors present.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- yes it is broken down into sections

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- there are no images
Are images well-captioned?
- there are none
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- no
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
no

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- yes the article is easily understood and well written.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- it provides the reader with full information about Cheryl Heller. It explains her early life, her work and awards she has received.
How can the content added be improved?
- fix a few grammatical errors.