User:Angela.H.Carranza/Mary Lindsay Elmendolf/M.R. Verbera Peer Review

General info

 * User: Angela.H.Carranza
 * User:Angela.H.Carranza/Mary Lindsay Elmendolf

Lead evaluation
The lead contains too many details that would better support other sections of the article. The first and last sentences fit well with the goal of introducing the subject to the reader and giving a general idea of the anthropologist's importance, however, many of the details in between pertain to her biographical information. Additionally, double check that citation one is working properly, as it does not seem to lead to any reference currently.

Content evaluation
No problems with content.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does not have any problems with neutrality. However, it makes it clear that the anthropologist's most important work was the study of nine Mayan women. It is important to directly cite a source in this paragraph which claims that this study is her most prominent work in order to justify your own decision to make it a significant section of the article, thereby avoiding any perception that you have personally chosen to highlight this particular study above her many other works.

Sources and references evaluation
Remember to cite your sources in the in-text format. Other than that, great job with the research. All sources which I tested looked credible.

Organization evaluation
The article's organization is the element that needs the most work. There are grammatical errors throughout which distract the reader from the message. Aside from this issue, various information should be moved between sections. For example, as mentioned, the lead contains details which would be better off if included in the Life and Education section. The list of projects could include some of the professional information from the section on Life and Education as well. Also, I suggest writing the year of publication next to each of the books in the Publications section.

New Article Evaluation
For people who are deceased, it is best to use the past tense when writing about their life; the first sentence of the lead uses the present tense. Additionally, the infobox creates some confusion with regard to her marriages. It is customary to list the years during which the couple was married rather than the entire lifespan of a spouse. This can be seen in other Wikipedia entries where multiple spouses are listed.

Overall evaluation
The article would benefit from careful proofreading, as there are instances where grammatical errors distract from the message of the article. The lead section suffers from an excess of detail which would be better in the main body of the article. Overall, the structure of the article is well thought out, but numerous information needs to be moved between sections in order to allow the reader to find relevant information more quickly; in other words, it comes across as disorganized. The references are very thorough and show that great care was made in research.