User:Cafe.doppio/Janine Caira/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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Cafe.doppio
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cafe.doppio/janine caira

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
Great introductory sentence, very succinctly describes Caira's scientific significance.

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

Tone and Balance
All the content is relevant and expands on the information in your lead section.

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
I get no sense of bias from this article, it presents facts neutrally and covers various aspects of her life equally.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think so
 * 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
My only suggestion would be to provide a source for the beginning of the "Professional milestones" section.

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
Very few grammatical errors, although these don't impede readability.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It seems to
 * 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

New Article Evaluation
As a new article it meets the notability requirements, uses a variety of secondary sources, and is formatted well.

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?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I like the legacy section, and I think your final sentence after Duszynski's quote nicely wraps up the article. I remember in your email you said you were 90% done, so any suggestions I have will probably be taken care of once it's all done. For example, providing a citation for the first sentences of the "Professional milestones" section and including an image of Caira. It may also be useful to create a bulleted list of the awards/grants she's received, and another of her publications. Although you discuss this in the body of the article, also including it as a separate list may be useful.