User:Allisonkirkpatrick/Mary Agnes Chase/Sbowen99 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? Allison Kirkpatrick (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, I think this lead is clear, concise, and it introduces the article well.
 * 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, overall I think so. I think that the lead section could include a little more about the Women's Suffrage Movement though. (Allison acknowledged that this section was not added by her though so it makes sense. However, you could try to incorporate a little bit more of it into the lead.)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it's very concise and the details it has add to it rather than distract.

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 I don't think anything looks like it doesn't belong. However, I think it would be helpful to have a section that includes her publications and also maybe addresses any honors she received rather than keeping them in one section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Being as it is about a woman scientist I would say it does address an underrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not at all.
 * 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, this article is really informative but it doesn't push me one way or another.

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?
 * I think so. There's one book called Women in the Field by M. Bonta however that has a chapter on Mary Agnes Chase that I think could be useful. I think that this definitely reflects all the available literature though. (I currently have this book checked out and there isn't a copy online. The chapter on Chase is only about 10 pages, but if you'd like I'd be more than happy to email you photos of it!)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, this content does a good job of avoiding fluff or fancy words.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I think so. I suggested earlier in the review adding another section, but it's really well done how it is now.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes! I love the photo of her sitting at the desk it's very cool to see.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I think so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, it's great to have a photo of her by the lead.

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?

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
I think that this is a fantastic draft. I can tell that Allison put a lot of work into making sure that all of Chase's life was well recorded and she did a fantastic job of handling her tone. I found it to be challenging to be neutral at times because I wanted to advocate on her behalf and get people excited but Allison did a great job with that. I found Chase to be exciting and important all on my own and without her persuasion. The one thing I would add is, if possible, more photos. It would be a nice touch to include images of the grasses or of her book covers if possible. It's not a must but I think it helps to captivate the reader and keep them interested. Great job!