User:Blacksheep109/Gregory H. Robinson/Mbenja 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? Blacksheep109
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Blacksheep109/Gregory H. Robinson

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

This entire page was added by my peer, and the lead has been updated to reflect this. It contains an introduction sentence that introduces who he is, however I would suggest combining the first two sentences to make it flow a little better. The article does include a brief description of the article's major sections, however make sure that you mention the chemistry again in the main body of the article. Right now it is only mentioned in the lead. The lead is not overly concise or detailed.

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

All content added is related to Gregory H Robinson, and from what I can tell all content is up to date. I think that if there is more information about his early life and what type of research he does, that may be beneficial to add.

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

You did a good job of remaining neutral throughout the article. There are not any claims that are biased and there are not really many perspectives to have on this person.

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

Nothing in the lead section has any citations. The sources appear to be thorough and current. All links I checked 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 content added is well written and easy to read. There are a few grammatical errors; in the 1st sentence I think it should say connect instead of connects and in the last section of the lead work should be 'work'. I think you might want to add a section on his research and contributions to science and describing a little bit of the chemistry he does.

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

This article does not contain images, however I suggest finding a picture of him to add to the article.

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

The articles does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. Additionally, I believe that the author of this page has used multiple resources to create her reference list. The article follows similar patterns of other articles and does contain links to other articles. I would suggest adding more links to things relating to the chemistry he does.

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

Great start!! The article is for sure more complete than it was to begin with because there was no article before. Great job finding sources. I think that your article will be benefited by making some of the changes that I noted above, and potentially an interview with Robinson to learn some more of his personal facts (birthday, high school education, etc). Check out his university's website for a photo of him.