User:BranMet/Matilda Coxe Stevenson/Peyton Tooze 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? (provide username)
 * BranMet - Brandon Metcalf
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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. very clear.
 * 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, everything mentioned was included, from what I can tell.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is very detailed but not too much. All points seem important.

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?
 * I can't find anything that doesn't belong, everything added was added with a purpose, from what I can tell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes! It is about a woman in science, more specifically, an ethnologist, geologist, explorer, and an activist. Also, she helped the cause for women in science.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes! nothing was opinion or disputable.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, not from what I can tell.
 * 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, it does not persuade the reader to believe anything.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, lots of academic sources and seem reliable.
 * 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?
 * The sources seem very diverse and some are written by women, not sure about other historically marginalized groups.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is well-written and easy for me to read. Some younger people might have some troubles but no a lot.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not from what I can tell.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, organization is perhaps the most successful aspect of this Wikipedia page.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, one picture helps the reader to put a face to the name.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, standard area.

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?
 * The article is very much improved. It is very easy to tell that a graduate student wrote this. It is much more extensive and the additions are crucial to understanding this woman and her place in the field as well as her attitude and the reasonings behind her life decisions.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths lay with the organization and the insight into the stages of her life and her experiences in those different stages. Well done!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It could be improved by more pictures (I know there might be few or even none.) but, it would hold interest for longer into the article, I believe. Also, maybe a picture or two of the books she wrote.