User:CaitlynOwen/Deborah M. Gordon/Stellur Peer Review

General info
CaitlynOwen
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:CaitlynOwen/Anne George (biologist)/Bibliography
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Deborah M. Gordon

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Hi Caitlyn! Here's my peer review for you,

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes, maybe another sentence or two could have been added about the new information on education and employment you added.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, you added new subsections: Education and employment & major research, which included relevant information on Deborah Gordon. New citations have also been added to the existing article, seems like you added in 17 new citations with the new content you added into the article
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes many of the articles you've added into the article are fairly new (from 2023)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I don't think there is any particualar content that does not belong as all the new information/subsection are relevant to the biography of Deborah Gordan. However, maybe a section on her legacy, such as major contributions to the field and her research publication could be added to the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes it does you are addressing women which are a highly underrepresented area; specifically women biologist are very unrepresented in the field of science.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes the articles content is neutral and remains objective throughout. The new information added focuses on outlining Gordon's research areas, findings, and contributions to the field of biology without expressing any bias. The language is also factual and informative.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: The article provided a comprehensive view of Gordon's research and its implications, however could have also explored the potential criticisms or limitations in her research findings. This could be a suggestion for future edits of the article. For instance, discussions on the limitations of studying ants as models for understanding complex systems or the potential criticisms of extrapolating behavior observed in ant colonies to human systems could provide a more balanced perspective. Additionally, there might be contrasting viewpoints within the scientific community regarding the extent to which ant behavior directly translates to human organizational behavior, which wasn't deeply explored in this overview.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Some but not all. Here's some examples from your sandbox draft where I think citations might be useful to improve the article:

- "At 29, Gordon was selected as a Junior Fellow by the Harvard Society of Fellows (1984). She then worked in the Centre for Mathematical Biology at Oxford in 1987. She was a Research Associate for the Centre for Population Biology at Imperial College London at Silwood Park and was a College Research Fellow at Lady Margaret Hall University of Oxford from 1989 to 1991." These sentence involve a lot of dates and information which could use a source to back it up

- "Deborah Gordon and her team at The Gordon Lab study the behavior and ecology of ant colonies, specifically red harvester ants. She has extensively researched collective behavior, how colonies operate without central control, and comparisons between the workings of nature and other systems, such as the brain." Since this is also a fact and information about her research lab, a source is required

- "Initially, scientists theorized that ants performed tasks based on body size, but ants perform multiple jobs throughout their lifetime, disproving this theory. Ants do not carry out jobs that fit their strengths but instead, choose tasks depending on shifting interactions between others in the collective." This sounds like you are describing a theory, which should have a source.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? Yes the sources are very thorough, and seem to come from peer-reviewed articles and scientific journals. All the sources have the proper journal name and page numbers listed.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes most of the sources seem to range from late 1990s to the present year 2023
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are various types of sources and peer reviewed articles used. From literature published by universities to national science academies, different areas of science seem to be represented. Additionally, the authors also seem to range in different spectrum of research specialities.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - I don't think any of the sources used are random websites or news articles, they all seem to be reliable sources. For the information added on Gordon, I think the peer reviewed articles used have provide sufficient information.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to read; the article is broken into relevant subsections that make the article easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article seems to switch from past to present terms in between sentences. Considering your are taking about accomplishment that have already been done, everything should be in past terms. Other sentences I found with grammatical errors include:

- "Initially, scientists theorized that ants performed tasks based on body size, but ants perform multiple jobs throughout their lifetime, disproving this theory. " Perform should be performed, incorrect form of verb

- "Gordon's research on ants teaches us about the adaptive nature of colonies and is helpful to better understanding and improving human systems and organizations." Also another sentence with incorrect very usage, it should be "Gordon's research on ants teaches us about the adaptive nature of colonies and is helpful to better understand and improve human systems and organizations."

-from the section "19th century" : "but if one only staid to think how countless and how onerous those duties really are, more respect would be paid to the faithful effort to perform the, and an added reverence extended to the mother who is also the housekeeper.": "perform the, and an added…" weird sentence structure


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into sections/general headings and then with specific details. For example, you contributed the section education and employment, major research which talks about all areas of Gordon's research studies, as well as the new awards and recognition section.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - Yes for sure, the content added about Gordon's education, employment and research tell us a lot more about Gordon as a scientist. Additionally, a lot more citations and bibliography was added to the article. There are a few places still that could use some in-line citations. Additionally, considering her work is on a specific area in biology, there are a lot of terms that people may not be familiar with. Linking important terms might add a lot of value and information to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The major research section that was added is really in depth and well written out. It gives a very good overview of what Gordon's different areas of research are and what all she has contributed to in the study of ant colony behavior. Furthermore, the new citations and bibliography added really makes the article more reliable and stronger.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Yes, she has 18 reliable sources in the article, which is really good.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Yes, because the article focuses on a women scientists who is also a biologists known for her research in behavioral ecology of ants. While the information doesn't relate directly to our course on Cell biology, her work and contribution to the field of biology are definitely important to take note.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes, she adds information on Gordon's early education and employment
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? This is overall a really good article, a lot of content specific to Gordon's research was added. As I mentioned before, maybe more information on what the scientific communities considered of Gordon's research findings would really add value.

-Shreya