User:Bmdbt/Janet Gourlay/Sukie0205 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bmdbt and Nosytg (they combined their work on Bmdbt's page)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bmdbt/Janet_Gourlay?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Janet Gourlay

Evaluate the drafted changes
The changes you made to the lead section make a lot of sense! It was very bare-bones before, and as someone working on Margaret Benson, I appreciate her inclusion! The only concern I have is that you define Margaret as her "lifelong partner" but as of now you don't seem to elaborate on that much in the rest of the article. It would be good to (if you can find information about it) have more about exactly how they met and how close they were.

The content you added overall is very relevant and goes a long way in helping expand on women's contributions to archaeology and Egyptology. I think it would be nice to have a section about her personal life as well as her professional life, if you have enough information to support one. That way information about her excavations could be in one section, and things about her relationship with Margaret or other aspects of her life could be in another one.

Tone-wise, I think everything is fairly neutral except naming Margaret as her "lifelong partner" without any elaboration or supporting information, like I said earlier. (I'm completely with you in the opinion that they were almost definitely together romantically, but some sources to support this would be good!)

The sources you use seem reliable, diverse, and accurate to what you claim they say. Looks good!

I mentioned organization a bit in the content section, but I would like to see the article have more than one body section, and I think splitting it up into her professional life and her personal life might be a good divide. But of course, that completely depends on what sort of information you're able to find, so maybe you'll find a different section to add!

Overall, I like what you've got! It adds a lot of valuable information about the work that Janet contributed to, and gives her a lot more agency than the original article did. As far as suggestions go, I really only have that recommendation about organization! Also, be sure to add links in your text to things like Amun and Ramsese II if they have wikipedia pages, but that's of course a minor thing. Thanks for letting me review! :)

Peer Review Response
Thank you for your review! Here is my plan now for moving forward

You’re very correct about the lifelong partners being an inclusion with no support. I feel like it’s a bit awkward as well. That is also something I mentioned when first working on the article actually and we unfortunately haven’t gotten around to fixing yet. We are planning to add a section on about relationships which will focus on Margaret. Hopefully this will support the sentence and further support how they met and they started working together!

You also have a great point about the organization. Splitting the personal and profession is what we’re planning to do, like I mentioned above! I think it will be a good way to see the connection between the women and their work without bias.

We’ll be sure to add the links. It had slipped my mind but it’s so important to do!

Best of luck with your article :))