User:Bruhgirl/Dr. Maria Ruth B. Pineda-Cortel/Nomakm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bruhgirl


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bruhgirl/Dr._Maria_Ruth_B._Pineda-Cortel?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * No article yet (May 6)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * The content is relevant to Dr. Pineda-Cortel as a scientific researcher and advocate for women’s health. The article is not finished, but the content there is up to date with most citations coming from 2020. Since the article is not finished there is some information missing. The article does deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps as it discusses a woman in the STEM field. One thing I would add to the education content is to maybe find anything that she’s done in her education—what labs did she work in, did she have any mentors, any clubs she did, etc.
 * The content is neutral discussing Dr. Pineda-Cortel with only facts and no opinions or apparent biases.
 * The content is backed up by reliable sources that are not published by Dr. Pineda-Cortel herself. The information is presented in a way that accurately reflects what the citated sources say. However, the citations are mainly from the UST website which although they may be the only sources of information, Wikipedia may say that this is not thorough enough—that she may not be as notable. As previously mentioned, the sources are up to date—coming from 2020. All the citations in the references work.
 * The content is well written, easy to read, and concise. One thing I would fix in the intro is changing “As a woman of science…” to “As a woman in science…”. Also, I would take out the note in the Education header as it is not needed when you publish the article. Overall, the article has great organization starting with the intro, then moving on to her education, and then career. I like how the publications and awards are towards the end since they aren’t really a timeline organization.
 * The article does have 3+ secondary sources although I would try to find more resources outside of UST. I like the infobox at the top of the page as it looks like other Wikipedia pages and gives the readers a great summary of the article topic. Great addition of links within the article so readers can click them if they do not know what it is.
 * Overall, the article is organized great, and it seems the author will add more information soon. There was not much to review since the draft is incomplete but what was there seemed complete and informational. The content could be improved with more variable sourcing, pictures, and the addition of categories at the bottom of the page.