User:Abhisheksoni2/Gertrude Crotty Davenport/Trav0001 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Abhisheksoni2


 * User:Abhisheksoni2/Gertrude Crotty Davenport

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Lead
 * The lead reflects the new information that has been added to the article. Introductory sentence is concise and states a clear topic that the writer is discussing. Description to introduce major sections is very good. It stays on topic and does not include excessive information. The lead is concise and not overly detailed. Great introduction, in my opinion.
 * Content
 * The content present in the article is highly relevant and seems to be up-to-date. I did not think there was any missing content or content that did not pertain to the article. Davenport was a female, so this article could be considered as addressing one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article describes her great success as a researcher and instructor. It highlights her many successes during her career, so I believe that it addresses topics of historically underrepresented topics because women were not typically seen as researchers and teachers at this time. If there was any more information that could be pulled about the published work that Gertrude and Charles Davenport produced, I would be interested to read more about this work. I also noticed that there were not links to certain words, like there were previously in the article. I'm not sure if it would be helpful to make those link for some of the less common terms, but that is a possible suggestion!
 * Tone & Balance
 * The content is neutral and do not appear to be biased. The information provided is all factual and I did not find any information that was overrepresented or underrepresented. I did not find any of the sentences or information to be persuasive or trying to push a particular position or idea.
 * Sources & References
 * The content reflects what the articles say and are highly relevant to the topic being discussed in the Wikipedia article. The sources are current and seem to have a very diverse spectrum of authors and come from many different kinds of articles, which offers lots of perspective. The links in the References section all worked for me, but I could not get the link under the 'External Links' section to work, so this may be something to look into.
 * Organization
 * I thought that this article was very well organized. The sections were broken up in ways that made sense. I did not find grammatical errors and all of the links that were included in the page worked. The content is easy to follow and is organized in a way that makes perfect sense.
 * Images & Media
 * There were not any images or media included on the Wikipedia article. It may be helpful to add a picture of Davenport so that readers can reference an image of her or a picture of her work in a laboratory, if there was one of those available! The article is great without it; it may just enhance it for visual learners/readers.
 * Overall Impressions

The article seems to be much more complete with the additions of information that have been added to this article. There is much more background info that helps to give a full picture of Gertrude Davenport's life and her many successful endeavors as a researcher and instructor. The strengths of the content are that the information relays what was pulled from the references, and the additions are unbiased and highly relevant to better understanding the life of Davenport. The only ideas that I have for improvement are to possibly add media to the Wikipedia page and add more information about the Published Work. Overall, the article was great and easy to read!