User:Angela.H.Carranza/Mary Lindsay Elmendolf/Isaortega27 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)
 * Angela Carranza
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Angela.H.Carranza/Mary Lindsay Elmendolf

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
'''There is new information on the lead describing Elmendolf's major career accomplishments which is good, and well written in a straight forward way to understand. The topic sentence is good and doesn't overwhelm with unnecessary information, it briefly describes her relevance to anthropology and then subsequently with the following sentences talks more about the specific things she's done. I would suggest adding more of a breakdown in the lead about the different sections to be covered in the rest of the article but overall good information to briefly provide overview of Mary Elmendolf, and good job keeping it concise.'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
==== '''Since the article talks about an anthropologist who studies Mayan women, and had lots of influence in projects with hispanic people, I would say it does address an unrepresented population. It seems like a lot of Elmendolf's work was in fact with unrepresented latin populations. The information is all contemporary and there is nothing that seems outdated or irrelevant, there is nothing that seems like it doesn't belong, I would just suggest adding more in the body (perhaps a new section) about her work in anthropology. You do a good job in the lead of outlining some of what she is known for in the world of anthropology but you could talk more about for example how she ended up as head of the CARE office in Mexico. I don't think you need to expand more on her university career but another thing in the lead which could be included in the body could be aiding United Nations conferences. You also have a list of her publications on the page so you can also pick a couple to pick apart and dig into a little deeper, maybe her most famous and well known ones at least to give a brief run down just like in one of the sections.''' ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
==== '''Tone of the content is neutral and shows no bias or nudging to think in a certain way, plus the page is about an anthropologist with a good reputation, so there isn't much opportunity even to push biased opinions. The article is mainly fact based thus far, so there isn't anything that seems under/overrepresented. Overall good tone and good job not making there seem like theres any emotions being pushed across.''' ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
'''Wide range of sources and they all seem to be scholarly for the most part, and information is not repetitive which is good. The sources after clicking through a few are university pages as well as journals of solid reliability.'''

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
'''Article is well organized and broken down in a way that highlights relevant information in the person's life, while allowing for the reader to gain a straightforward idea withoug getting confused with too many ideas that dont belong in the relevant sections. I would suggest adding more sections on publications like the one that's already there, thats a really good way of getting to know Elmendolf. There are a few spelling errors in the first section, and fix the name in the title of the first body section.'''

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?

New article evaluation
'''The article is supported by at-least 2-3 reliable sources independent of the subject. Sources can still be exhausted further, I think there is more literature available on her life such as different biographies that may help provide more background on her achievements, work, and life. The article follows patterns of others, and I like the amount of links to other pages provided, it shows thoughtfulness.'''

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
'''Overall this wikipedia page is solid, and seems like a legitimate page that I would expect to see if I searched Mary Elmendolf, the structure is nice, the use of other links is efficient, and the page breakdown is done well. The content all comes from legitimate sources and is cited well, it is a great page especially considering it was a new one. The only thing I really can suggest is adding more information, while maintaining that same pattern of structure to the page. As I mentioned earlier I think a good part to expand on would be adding mroe information on her publications in more sections like the one already there, and doing this on maybe a few of Elmendolf's most notable publications. Her personal life is very brief which is good and lots of information on her education is there as well, however, I do think this page needs more information on the career aspect of her life and what she is known for in Anthropology, very much an expanse on what was mentioned in the introduction section. Good job so far!'''