* Yes, my page on Saswati Chatterjee looks like a normal Wikipedia page on any other person of interest. There are no "I" statements and everything is based on research.
2 Does the content accurately represent the cited sources?
* There are some sections that might be a not as well defined as the actual article. I feel that that basic idea was understood thru-out the reading as a whole.
3 Is the writing clear, comprehensible, and doesn't use too much jargon?
* Yes, I tried to use very similar or exact definitions from used sources
4 Do the contents of each section belong in that section? In other words, is each section coherent, and in concord with the section heading?
* Yes, I pulled a lot of the information from the City of Hope website, and categorized that information in a similar manner.
5 Are there gaps in the content? (What is missing?)
* I feel that based on the information I was able to find, I gave a good representation my chosen scientist and her research.
6 Are there places where there is ambiguity or inaccuracy over which sources are supporting what content?
* No, everything is directly from cited sources from the person, virology book or wiki hyperlinks.
7 Could the content be structured differently? You could suggest alterations in the order of sentences, paragraphs or sections for organizational purposes.
* I feel that the organization is the best I could do with the limited personal information on the Chatterjee and my basic understanding of the topic.
8 Are there parts of the article that are not clearly explained, and could cause questions to arise in the mind of a reader?
* The research contributions section may be a little discombobulated to a reader.
9 Is the content within Wikipedia's guidelines (such as neutral point of view) and does it avoid plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing?
* Yes, I cited all my sources and didn't used any personal opinion phrases. Which was actually easier to do that I anticipated.
