User:Ancicco/Elizabeth O. King/Mcjorda Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ancicco


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ancicco/Elizabeth_O._King?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Elizabeth O. King

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.)

The article has a great Lead and introductory sentence. The Lead reiterates the important points from the article including introducing the subject, describing her major contributions, and describing her death. One note, the description of her exact death date and place of interment are only found in the Lead and should probably be added to the final sentence of the Biography section. Content wise, I thought the article did a good job balancing the relatively small amount of biographical information with the abundance of information on this person's scientific contributions. The article skillfully picks only the most significant moments from the career of a well decorated scientist to highlight. The content also addresses equity issues by highlighting a female scientist.

The tone of the article was very neutral and professional. There did not appear to be any bias from the author. The source links that I checked were all functional, and the sources appeared to be of good repute. Based on my internet searches, the sources present cover much of the available literature. I appreciate the two images in the article and find that they greatly enhance the quality of the article. This is one of the most difficult parts of editing articles because of copyright laws.

Stylistically, there are a few places in the article that could use the addition of commas. As previously mentioned, I think the organization finds a very appropriate balance between the biographical information available and the plethora scientific articles available. The organization of the accomplishments section was confusing at first because the years appear to jump around, but the organization makes sense given the content. To match the already formed style, I think dating the final accomplishment with a year would be helpful given that this information is available in the citations (eg. In 1997...). I appreciate the annotated Notable Publications section, but I think using a different type of bullet point or some other denotation in addition to indention would be helpful to make the section more visibly appealing. Overall, this article is very good. Job well done!