User:Zeeshaan Chunawala/Paul Hugh Emmett/Adevire1 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? Zeeshaan Chunawala and Joseph Oldam
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zeeshaan Chunawala/Paul Hugh Emmett

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 has had a significant amount added to it as it only had one sentence before. It includes a concise introductory sentence that describes Emmett's career and does include information from each section. However, it may be overly detailed and I'm not sure if this is important but it is in a different order than the article itself (for example it talks about the BET theory and Manhattan project before education but it's opposite in the article). The lead doesn't include information not present in the article.

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 that was added is relevant and up to date. I don't think there is any missing content or anything that doesn't belong. It may not be necessary to mention little things such as who his doctoral advisor studied under.

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

The added content is neutral and unbiased since most of it is factual. There don't seem to be any overrepresented or underrepresented views and the information isn't persuasive.

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

Most of the content is backed up by reliable secondary sources such as the Johns Hopkins pages, however, some of the sources are papers written by Emmett. These are only used to discuss what his papers were about so I think it is okay? Also, one of them is encyclopedia.org which I am not sure is a good source - it may be better to use the sources that paper cited at the bottom of the page. Also, the findagrave.com source may not be a reliable source to use. The sources are current and the links all work.

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

The added content is concise, clear and easy to read. There are a few grammatical/spelling errors: In the nitrogen fixation section it says: "He used of stable nitrogen isotopes" (I think it should say He used stable nitrogen isotopes to study...) and in BET theory the quotations need to be closed. Also in the lead, "adsorption" is spelled wrong the first time it is mentioned (where it's a link). The content is well organized for the most part and I really like how the research section is split with headings for each topic he worked on. However, I'm not sure if there needs to be an early life section and a personal life section (the personal life section seems to be slightly out of place). Also, the death/legacy section is kind of far away from the awards/honors section which are somewhat related.

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

The image of Emmett is clear and does enhance the understanding of the topic. It is well captioned and does adhere to copyright regulations. It is also 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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?