User:CPandCP/Jenny Tung/Alfuller18 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) CPandCP
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CPandCP/Jenny Tung

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead is very short on the actual wiki page but I assume you are planning on fleshing out the existing content.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The content you have added to your sandbox appears informative and up to date. I like that it gives a bit of background into how she got into the science world. I noticed one small wording problem under the education section:

"She attended Duke University for both her bachelor of science, in 2003, as well as her Ph.D. in 2010. " - the sentence seems repetitive to me

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

All content seems neutral. I didn't see anything that was over or underrepresented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

I saw a few sentences that did not appear to have a citation. I see that you listed DuPont's wiki page as a source. I think there is a way to add a link to another wiki page so that when you click on the word "DuPont," it will automatically take you to that page. All other sources look good and the links that I tried were functioning.

Organization

Guiding questions:

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

Organization evaluation

All of the content appears well organized and mostly easy to read. Just be careful with super long sentences. Ex:

"Tung focused her early research on primates, but is now looking to further her research with meerkats to continue to study the social interactions among them and link those interactions to other aspects of research." - this may just be me but I got a bit confused near the end of the sentence.

I like the chart you made to list her awards.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or 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?

Images and media evaluation

There are currently no images on the wiki page or in the sandbox.

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?

New Article Evaluation

I'm fairly sure this is not a brand new article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I think you're doing great!