User:Paigevinch/Ronald J. Daniels/Joseph0618 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? (provide username)
• Reneeliiu and Paigevinch
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Reneeliiu/Ronald J. Daniels

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been truncated and edited to better summarize the Wikipedia page as a whole, which was a nice edit. The beginning seems to be their proposed lead, which does reflect new content that would be addressed in the article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The lead's introductory statement does concisely and clearly describe the article's topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead doesn't explicitly state what the article's major sections will be, but the lead hints at certain sections. For instance, President Daniel's affiliation with Hopkins is mentioned all throughout the Lead, and this portion makes up a large part of the actual article itself.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The Lead doesn't include information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead that they edited and put above the former lead is much more concise then the original lead.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content added is relevant to the topic since President Daniels is the current president of JHU, information on his presidency is certainly relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content that is added is up-to-date, providing information that is recent and relevant. For instance, they note that President Daniels was added to the Board of Directors of BridgeBio on February 20, 2020, suggesting how current the additions have been.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The content that is missing would be portions of his personal life history, how he became so accomplished and his background overall. Although this content is not necessary for his position as it stands, since the article is on Ronald J. Daniels and not just President Ronald J. Daniels, it would be good to get some information on his upbringing.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content that is added is neutral and seems very careful to use any charged language. The information is clearly stated and provided without bias.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, but there are some words that may be on the verge of appraisal. For instance, in the "Presidency of Johns Hopkins" section of the article, at the bottom it says that "Daniels played a pivotal role." The word "pivotal" may seem favorable, but again it can argued that factually he did play a very important role in this circumstance. Words like these could technically be omitted, but may be kept if the authors preferred it that way.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Some viewpoints that are underrepresented would be instances in which President Daniels had to make unfavorable decisions, or perhaps made mistakes. I'm sure throughout his career he has had his own set of mishaps, and perhaps it would've been found more towards his earlier life. This would bolster the claim for the addition of a section on his early life and perhaps an addition of some controversial decisions made as the JHU President.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • This content doesn't explicitly attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, but provides information factually and clearly.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • The new content is backed up with a significant amount of reliable secondary source information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are thorough, although they do seem to lean heavily on the president.jhu.edu site as well as other JHU affiliated works, but this would make sense as most of their additions were about his involvement with JHU as its President.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources provided are current.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links that I've clicked on do work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content is well-written and it is clear and easy to read. The overall flow of the article seems to be consistent and the subheaders help with the organization.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • The content doesn't seem to have any blatant grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The content is very well organized, the section regarding his presidency is split up nicely into his different projects as well as policies and efforts.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (They did not add media)

• 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?

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?
  • Overall, the content added really does improve the overall quality of the article as it provides a much more in-depth view of his presidency. The article is much more complete with that regard.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths of the content added is its relevancy, organization, and neutrality.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The content can be further improved with the addition of information regarding his early life or upbringing as well as more information on controversies or downfalls of his career. Although it is possible that he has only made successes in his career, I'm sure there must be some decisions that had some student groups feel a certain way or board members a bit uneasy. If there are, they would be a great addition to the article in order to better provide balance to the article. Overall, the additions were great and the edits made were very beneficial to the overall article.