User:Bolingerk/Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps/Kristinbell Peer Review

Peer review by Kristin Bell of Bolingerk's Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps
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) Bolingerk
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bolingerk/Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps

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? Kind of.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise

Lead evaluation
I think you have a good lead section. It is fairly concise and straightforward.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Some
 * Is the content added up-to-date? As much as it can be
 * 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? Yes

Content evaluation
I don't think any relevant information is missing that I can tell. It seems like some of the information is coming straight out of a source and generally follows that source? Not sure. I think maybe some of the content could be slightly trimmed to reflect more of your scientist's life, but that is debatable and up to you.

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.

Tone and balance evaluation
Really good tone and balance. I don't feel persuaded to think in any direction.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Perhaps
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? As much as they can be
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not all

Sources and references evaluation
Not all of the links are working. (Oh, just realized some links might not be yours!) Some link back to the article page. I'm not sure if ALL new content is cited. I would default on the side of citation for wiki articles whereas when you are writing history papers we might not cite mundane stuff as much (ie birthdates).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Could use improvement.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. OH! I just realized why you did all the underlining! hahaha.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would add sections.

Organization evaluation
You have found quite a lot of information about your person! I would probably add some more sections to divide her life up a bit more, so it is easier to read and more concise. I'm thinking maybe have a section about the books she wrote, a section about her teaching, a section about her education, a section about her personal life, etc.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? I would add in the caption that this is where she taught and became a vice principal
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
I like the added image. I'm wondering if there are any available images from her books/book covers? I think those would be great, but not sure if you could find any.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very in depth!
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe just sections added/rearrangement?

Overall evaluation
I thought maybe it would be good to add sections, but now I realize that you are adding onto an existing article, and you may not be comfortable doing that. I know I'd be scared. LOL. I would probably do something on the talk page and address the idea of adding more sections and dividing up the info. so it is more digestible. Good job on finding a lot of good info. Now I really want to see her books! :)