User:Acunangela/Angelique de Coudray/Notyourtherapist Peer Review

User:Acunangela/Angelique de Coudray/Notyourtherapist Peer Review

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Acunangela


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Acunangela/Angelique de Coudray


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Angélique du Coudray

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead has been updated to reflect new content. The introductory sentence could be revised to include the specific time period in which she worked instead of "during the time men were taking over the field". The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections, something that the current article lacks. It does not include any information that is not present in the article.

Content:

The content is relevant, up-to-date, and addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance:

There are some gender biases present in the article. You may want to consider rephrasing the sentence: "Coudray worked with men who did not respect woman, she continued on to make a change working with government, medicine, and Catholic Church.". I do not think that the first part of the sentence is needed because "Coudray worked with men who did not respect women" sounds like you are attempting to persuade the reader towards a specific position and it could appear as though you are adding your personal beliefs into the article.

Sources and References:

The majority of the content is backed by reliable secondary sources of information. The content reflects the sources, and the sources are current, diverse, and thorough. The links are also working perfectly. However, these statements include numerical facts but are missing references:


 * As midwife educator Coudray taught in more than 40 provincial cities.


 * Each class was three to six months long with over one hundred students.
 * In her thirty years of teaching taught over 30,000 students.

Organization:

The overall content is concise, clear, and easy to read. However, the introductory sentence could be revised to be more concise as "a famous midwife who rose to fame as a midwife" sounds redundant since it repeatedly mentions "fame" and "midwife". The content is broken down into sections that reflect major points of the topic. There are minor grammatical errors (mainly punctuation) that are present in the article.

Overall Impressions:

The content added has improved the overall quality of the article, since the current article's lead section does not include an adequate summary of the article's main topics. The content is relevant and addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Revisions can be made to ensure that the content is free of any strong biases or personal viewpoints. Additionally, minor grammatical changes and the adding of missing references can be done to strengthen the overall quality of the article.