User:BranMet/Matilda Coxe Stevenson/Allisonkirkpatrick 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

 * BranMet
 * User:BranMet/Matilda Coxe Stevenson

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? Concise

Lead evaluation-
Good lead paragraph, it nicely maps out the rest of the article and includes the most relevant details.

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? No
 * 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-
All the content is clearly relevant to Matilda Coxe Stevenson's life, and appears (given the dates of the sources) to be up-to-date.

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-
While reading, I did not get them impression that any one position was over- or under-represented, or that the writing was trying to persuade me to agree with an opinion/viewpoint.

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? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation-
Facts are easily traceable to their corresponding source, and you included a lot of links to other Wikipedia pages which is great!

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? Yes

Organization evaluation-
The article is broken down into useful and clear sections. There are some editing errors, but these don't really impede the article's readability.

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? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation-
The image included is useful because it helps the reader engage with the information. It provides a good balance because the reader can both look at an image of Stevenson and read about her.

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?
 * 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-
You have added a ton of valuable new information, particularly by dividing what was the "Career" section in the original article into two new, much more substantive "Early Career" and "Later Professional Career" sections. These new sections are extremely thorough and provide multiple ways of looking at Stevenson's career. You write about the discrimination and stereotypes she faced as a female scientist and also about her personal views, which together create a well-rounded image of her character. It may be useful to provide another image in between the early and later career sections.