User:Mbenja/Malika Jeffries-EL/Chemistry Pink Lady Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Mbenja
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mbenja/Malika Jeffries-EL
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, but I think it could be expanded a little bit by introducing information on each section you chose to write about.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but the birthday is missing.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does include the a description about the science she researches, but I think you could include more information about each section (maybe a sentence about the most important information from each).
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. It does a good job of including appropriate information.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but like I said before, I think you could expand on it.
Lead evaluation: Overall, it is a good start. I think you just need to add a little bit more (which you already have the information at writen.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes I think that it is. I think you did a good job of finding reliable information for your scientist and still adding relevant content to the article.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think you could add more information (maybe a sentence or two more) about what type of research or work she did at each institution she worked at or with (or maybe the content of the talks she did/ why she was chosen if there is information about that).
Content evaluation: I think that you did an excellent job with your added new information.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes. I think that she wrote from an unbiased opinion.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. I think the information was factual.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. I think each viewpoint is even.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Tone and balance evaluation: I think that the tone you wrote in was unbiased.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]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? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Two of the resources are not available or not available to Wikidata. I think they can be entered in manually.
Sources and references evaluation: Sources are reliable and content written is backed up by reliable sources. The sources need to be fixed.
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
- Maggie- I do not think you need to make the Advocacy section a bullet list because there are details in the paragraph that would not flow with a list, to me a bullet list is short sections of information and this section not because each service requires explanation.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think so.
Organization evaluation: I think that the organization is good and does not need work.
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - she did not
- 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
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it is. I think that the content she added helped the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? What she has written is concise and detailed. It is information that the article needed.
- How can the content added be improved? I think that you could add more information about the research that Malika Jeffries-EL did at each institution. You could also add more to the lead so that each section is introduced.