User:D.perez.usu/Aida Hurtado/Tugrasi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

D.perez


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Aida Hurtado


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aida Hurtado

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall Impression: Really well written and structured. Good Job! I think the biggest issue is like of secondary sources otherwise everything else is good.

Lead:

I think you have a nice lead that summarizes things well. I think the last sentence may be a a bit repetitive and unnecessary but otherwise good.

Content:

Overall really good points and you cover a lot. However I notice in each section you repeat some variation of "Hurtado has had a long and distinguished career in the field of psychology, advocating for the inclusion of women of color and the promotion of feminist psychology". While I think this is a main point, I do not think every section needs to start or end with this. Well structured and laid out. Maybe more specificity about her specific studies but I think you link to them so its good.

Tone and balance:

I think for the most part this is laid out however there seems to be a strong tendency to state or exclaim her level of influence. Things like major figure or significant contributions. I think I am more curious as to what those contributions are. Maybe more specificity about her research? There are a couple claims that are made about citations as well.

Sources:

The references in your bibliography and final page are different but it seems a lot of your sources are primary, meaning written by Hurtado herself. It looks like Wikipedia is dinging your for this. Are there any news articles about her awards or articles written about her? I think Wikipedia is going to keep dinging you otherwise.

Organization and New Article:

This is well laid out and seems to mimic your typical Wikipedia article. I think there is good information but it is lacking some specificity. This article does not seem to meet notability requirements as in secondary sources that have written extensively about the subject. It also relies heavily on primary sources for information about biographical data, which does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

How to Improve:

Maybe watch some of the positive leanings in your statements and find some secondary sources.