User:Catdaly00/Lucy Engel Graves Taliaferro/Legacyleft 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)
 * Catdaly00
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Catdaly00/Lucy Engel Graves Taliaferro

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, it describes Lucy's career as a parasitologist and immunologist.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no explicit outline of "Biography" and "Work" in the lead, though there are such headers in the article later. But the lead does flow naturally into the section on work.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise; communicates the point without being overwhelming

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, after the lead, there are sections about work and biography. Each contains relevant facts to the section header.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, as up to date as can be, considering the person passed away in 1984.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a mention under Biography of the fact that Lucy and her husband met at a summer research program and were engaged to other people at the time. I'm not sure that last part is entirely relevant to her biography or work. It's fun to read though!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it highlights a woman scientist who was never paid for her position as Associate Professor and also mentions her political suffragist work. So in this case, the underrepresented population would be women.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Mostly neutral, but I do see some facts (like that she and her husband were engaged to other people when they met) that I think distract from the focus on her education and family life in Biography. I understand it occurred in her life, but I don't think it belongs in an informational article about her.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there is always a counterbalance of points, like in the Biography section about her political work.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, each paragraph has multiple sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * As current as her death (1984)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They are mainly from scientific journals and seem to have mainly white male authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yup! Clear, well-organized paragraphs
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not applicable
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable

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?
 * There are 7 sources and some describe the specifics of her work and others describe her achievements/career.
 * 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, there are section headings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * I don't see links to other pages but I do see citations.

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?
 * Good balance between her biography (personal life) and work (professional life). No paragraph is too long or repetitive. Clearly organized artticle
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Return to the Biography section and perhaps remove some of the less pertinent details. For example, it makes sense to note who Lucy married, but the fact that they were seeing other people when they met is not a necessary detail.