User:Allisonkirkpatrick/Mary Agnes Chase/KHuckaby1920 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? (provide username) Allisonkirkpatrick
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Allisonkirkpatrick/Mary Agnes Chase

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? YES
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? YES
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? YES, DEFINITELY
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? NO
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? IT'S DETAILED BUT NOT IN A BAD WAY

Lead evaluation
GREAT JOB! ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE, DISPLAYED IN A CONCISE, MATTER OF FACT WAY. IT'S EASY TO READ AND GIVES A GREAT OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS IN THE ARTICLE.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? YES
 * Is the content added up-to-date? YES
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? NO
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? ABSOLUTELY! NOT ONLY DOES IT COVER A FEMALE SCIENTIST, CHASE IS AN AGROSTOLOGIST, A FIELD OF BOTANY I HAD NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE. SHE WAS ALSO A SUFFRAGIST WHO WASN'T AFRAID TO STICK WITH HER VIEWS EVEN IF IT RISKED HER CAREER.

Content evaluation
GREAT WORK, I WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? NO
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO

Tone and balance evaluation
GOOD WORK WITH THE TONE. IT READ AS VERY PROFESSIONAL

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? YES
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? YES
 * Are the sources current? YES, AS MUCH AS CAN BE WITH A DECEASED SCIENTIST
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? YES
 * Check a few links. Do they work? YES

Sources and references evaluation
I LOVE THE VARIETY AND ABUNDANCE OF SOURCES, GREAT 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
ORGANZIATION LOOKS GOOD

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? YES
 * Are images well-captioned? YES
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? YES
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? YES

Images and media evaluation
NICE IMAGES, IM JEALOUS YOU WERE ABLE TO FIND PICTURES OF YOUR SCIENTIST THAT WERE ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA. :)

For New Articles Only N/A
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
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? YES
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I LIKE THAT YOU ADDED DETAILS IN SOME PLACES AND REDUCED THE INFORMATION IN OTHER PLACES. IT'S MORE CONCISE WHILE ALSO BEING DETAILED.
 * How can the content added be improved? I'M NOT SURE, IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD

Overall evaluation
NICE WORK!