User:Cafe.doppio/Janine Caira/Kristinbell Peer Review

Peer review by Kristin Bell for Cafe.doppio
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) Gary (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? Sort of.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not really.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
I think you have a strong lead. I might include her Smithsonian contribution in the lead too, because that seems significant.

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? There is one spot where it has an X for contributing specimens. Is that supposed to be 10 or is that a placeholder?
 * 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
I'm so glad you chose this person for your topic. She has obviously done a LOT of work to advance her field. I would say just to make sure that you don't miss any places where you have included placeholders instead of actual information.

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
This seems to be a very neutral and balanced article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * 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? Not all links worked.

Sources and references evaluation
Not all of your information is backed up by sources, especially in the early years section.

These links didn't work for me:


 * 1) "NSF Award Search: Award#9521943 - PEET: Monography of the Diphyllidea, Lecanicephalidea, and Tetraphyllidea: A Program to Train the Cestodologists of the Future". www.nsf.gov. Retrieved 2020-11-10.
 * 2) Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (2008-2017) : Tapeworms from Vertebrate Bowels of the Earth. Caira, Janine N.,, Jensen, Kristen,, Bueno, Veronica M,, Gallagher, Kaitlin, (Special publication no. 25 ed.). Lawrence, Kansas. ISBN  0-89338-002-4 . OCLC 1015344907.
 * 3) And you have two separate links for this one which should be one reference: Duszynski, Donald W. (2011). "ASP President 2010-2011, JANINE CAIRA: THIS IS YOUR LIFE!". The Journal of Parasitology. 97 (6): 962–966. ISSN 0022-3395.  Duszynski, Donald W (2011). "ASP President 2010–2011, Janine Caira: This Is Your Life!". Journal of Parasitology. 97 (6): 963–966. doi:10.1645/ge-2895.1. ISSN 0022-3395.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Needs some tidying up.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few issues.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The writing needs to be cleaned up a little. Don't use sentence fragments. The quotes in Research/Teaching and Legacy sections should probably be paraphrased instead.

Sentences should be fully written out like this one "U Conn Dept Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 1985" should not be abbreviated.

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/No...I would include in the caption that this is a species that was discovered by your scientist
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Debatable

Images and media evaluation
I would make your included image slightly bigger and include it further up in the article if you can, so that readers can see her work as you are discussing it. I would also add in the caption itself that it is a species that she discovered.

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? Perhaps
 * 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 far as I can tell it meets the notability requirements. Perhaps a few more sources would be good if you can find them. I know it is hard to find them though!!! I think for Nationality in the box I might put American rather than USA and then for Citizenship USA or United States. Is she a dual citizen since she was born in Quebec???

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? Great info. added!
 * How can the content added be improved? Flush out with a few more sources if you can.

Overall evaluation
Lots of great information here. Tighten up the writing and layout a bit, and if more sources are out there that could help, but I know those are hard to find. Terrific job! Oh, is there a picture of her somewhere that you can use? You might have looked already, just thought I'd ask.