User:Almondmilk2/Alaina Urquhart/Woodwix Peer Review

General info
Almondmilk2
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Alaina Urquhart
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead is simple, concise, and covers Urquhart's most notable achievements. It effectively gives the reader an idea of what the rest of the article holds. My only issue with the lead is that Urquhart's degrees are not brought up for the rest of the article. If they are not relevant enough to include in the rest of the article, you could probably cut that sentence out.

Content:

The "Career" section is wonderfully extensive and provides a clear view of Urquhart's works and achievements. The subheadings aid readability. I would break up some of these paragraphs into smaller sections, as looking at the wall of text can become a little overwhelming. The personal life section is very short, and there seems like there should be more information you could add there. For example, information about her relationship with her niece would be interesting and very relevant to the article.

Tone and Balance:

The content added is neutral and seems to cover all sides of Urquhart's life. The tone of the article is not very encyclopaedic, so I would make some edits there; using more formal and neutral language may help your tone.

Sources and References:

There are lots of sources here from a variety of places. There are more than enough third-party sources to establish notability. They are overall current and diverse. Unfortunately I cannot click most of the links and have to copy and paste them into the search engine, so that should be double checked.

Organization:

As mentioned previously, the use of subheadings here really aid with the readability of the article. There are a few grammar errors here and there, but that can be easily fixed with a spell-checker like Grammarly.

Overall Impressions:This is a really good draft and could be ready to publish with only a couple minor edits. Even though this is a new article, as long as the tone is edited to sound more encyclopaedic I think that it matches Wikipedia's standards. Good Job!