User:Romdarryl/Hildegard Stücklen/Haileywelxh 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]- Romdarryl
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Romdarryl/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Lead evaluation
[edit]It does not appear as if the lead has been updated. The lead is very concise, but it could also include more of an overview of Stucklen's life. The introductory sentence is good, but there is no discussion of the rest of the article. The lead also mentions that she dealt with spectroscopy, but there is no discussion of this in the rest of the article.
Content
[edit]Content evaluation
[edit]The content is relevant and up to date, but there isn't much information. There is no information about spectroscopy, which was mentioned in the lead. The only information seems to be about which universities she taught at, but little else about her work. Including discussion of her work would improve the notability of the article.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]The content is neutral and not biased, but the tone is very casual. It is very conversation-like versus encyclopedia-like.
Sources and References
[edit]Sources and references evaluation
[edit]There are three sources "cited," but they are not properly cited in-line, and it is not obvious which information came from where. This is something that definitely should be fixed.
Organization
[edit]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
[edit]I would not say the article is super easy to read. There were several run-on sentences and other grammatical errors that should be fixed.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]There are no pictures in this article, but I could not find any in the CC search either.
Overall impressions
[edit]Overall evaluation
[edit]I think there should be more discussion of Stucklen's works. The information about her work at universities is strong. If you find any more information beyond this that could improve the article, then that would be even better.