User:Nleibovici/Ann Willoughby/Erica.Coppola 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? Nleibovici
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Ann Willoughby

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I believe the lead is a very clear timeline and short summary of hr early life and career.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is straightforward and to the point.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead outlines what is to follow in the rest of the article.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it describes what is to come in the rest of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is short and to the point with an accurate amount of details and it isn't overwhelming.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content isn't as relevant to the topic and includes some statistics and numbers that make it confusing to read.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources are from years ago dating back to 2015.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More of her recent work should be included and less numerical statistics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? She is still working on getting more current information and sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources need some work.
• Are the sources current? Most of them are from 2015.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes most of the links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Most of it is easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical errors especially in the first paragraph.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized and pretty clear.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images.
• Are images well-captioned? No images.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images.

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? The article is a little more complete and has potential.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Her early life and education were the best.
• How can the content added be improved? More current information less numbers and stats.