User:Basti2425/Else Regensteiner: she/her, German, 1906-2003/L unchtime2 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? Bast2425
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Basti2425/Else Regensteiner: she/her, German, 1906-2003

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? ? Yes
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Consice

Lead evaluation
The lead is great; I just think it's in the wrong place. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Lead should come before the table of contents and not contain a section heading. Here's an example: Pru District.

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? Not that I know of!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? What is this question? I mean yes?

Content evaluation
There's a little on her personal life that could be included, like when she was married, etc. If you change the last section from Death to Personal Life you could just add it before the sentence on her death, and it'd all still work.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are good: museum bio and two scholarly articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part

Organization evaluation
- If you're going to further section off under the Career heading, go ahead and start right off the bat with a like Teaching or Instruction subheading, so it doesn't feel like the reader is halfway through the section before encountering the structure of it.

-"Ehrman offered Else a job as her assistant, Else accepted the offer..." The comma here needs to be a full stop - either a semicolon or separate the sentences.

- "Marli Ehrman, a graduate of the Bauhaus, taught Else theory, drafting, and weaving on a fly-shuttle loom and introduced her to the ideals of the Bauhaus movement." This sentence is awkward, since theory is a thing unlike the other two actions and related to the later tacked-on clause about ideals. Maybe separate them that way?

-"In 1947 she was made a full professor, and in 1957 she founded the Weaving Department and was its head until her retirement in 1971 when she was granted the title of professor emeritus." This is a run-on, I would just take that first clause and make it a separate sentence. You could probably get away with a semicolon instead.

-The last sentence of the paragraph the previous sentence is in could use a reference and some clarification on dates, even if its just like a "throughout this time" or something.

-The books in the second-to-last section need to be italicized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
No images yet. But like, I have no idea how to do that either. I think we're talking about that Thursday.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Good
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

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
It's a good article! I think all my critiques are above, and they are nitpicky. The content is good and structured well.