User:Bolingerk/Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps/Maloneel 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

 * 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?
 * 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
You could write something more explicit about how/why she educated young women. A lot of the article mentions her as an educator, so adding a little more in the lead section could help cover all the sections. You added a lot of information in the early years and education section, so maybe adding a sentence mentioning how her early life shaped her or shaped her career path/choice. I thought that the mentioned publications took up too much space(in this section) for how much you added to the article. Otherwise it looks good!

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
I think the article content is good, a balance of what she did along with those that influenced her (like her sister, husband, Cook etc.). There doesn't seem to be any gaps in the timeline of her life, and you have a good mix of voices both critical and not in there. Is there anything more you could add about women's suffrage? Like putting her ideas in context or if this was a different viewpoint from her peers or daughters. It doesn't have to be much I think the few lines you added were great but don't quite fit add the end of the article.

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
Great! All the content you added is neutral and I like that you added the part about her wanting science tied to religion and how the school did not agree.

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
Reference 1 & 7 seem to be the same thing, don't need it twice. I tried clicking on 4,5,6,10 and they didn't work.

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
I think its great! The only suggestion I have is the last paragraph, it sounds kind of like a conclusion on a paper. The first two sentences could be moved to the section where you talk about her wanting religion in the curriculum, then the last few sentences could go after "To that end Almira actively sought positions for her students."

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think the information in the early life section showed what kind of environment she was living in, showed how she could succeed, by putting her in context of what was happening in her world around her. The parts in the career section also showed her contributions in an academic setting and her connection to the scientific community, which were lacking from the original article. Great job! The only things to look at are the sources (links not working), and moving around/ changing the wording of the last paragraph.