User:DavidMHuang12/Dr. Myron Evans II/Nomakm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

DavidMHuang12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Myron Evans II


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Myron Evans II

Evaluate the drafted changes
·       The Lead section reflects what the is in the article, touching on each section topic. The lead sentence does a good job in telling the readers what the main topic of the article is about, Myron Evans II. One part of the intro section is that you mention diffuse midline glioma and teratoid/rhabdoid, but never discussed it in the article. Overall, the lead section is concise and to the point, offering the readers a great summary to Myron Evans II.

·       All the content is relevant to the topic, discussing who Myron Evans II is and his research. The content is up to date with citations coming from as late as 2022 and discussion of ongoing research that Evans is doing. Like mentioned above, if content is stated in the introduction, it should be discussed in the sections, so that is the only pieces that are missing. I would also suggest adding an awards section if they have received any. This article does deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps as it discusses an African American scientist.

·       As a whole, the content is presents in a neutral stance. Although I did find an instance where the sentence could be interpreted as bias: The sentence “Seattle Children’s has a special emphasis on using cutting-edge molecular tools” seems opinionated without citations to a mission statement or source in which says this. There does not seem to be an overall persuasion though.

·       The sources are reliable, although most of the sources—except the ones for the publications, seem to mostly come from The Seattle Children’s Hospital website. Also, the sections seemed to lack citations after citing facts, especially in the education section. I would try to dig a little deeper online to find any articles, interviews, etc. to back up the claims you have written. All the links work in the references section and throughout the article. Another suggestion I have is to add a Link Science Scholars of Tomorrow to their website as well as Link to Wikipedia pages to define melanocytes and melanomagenesis.

·       The content is well written and concise. I do feel that you start off a lot of your sentences with he; maybe use a variety of “He”, “Evans”, “Dr. Evans”, etc. so readers don’t feel like they’re reading the same thing. Principle investigators does not need to be capitalized. Possibly change “There are current clinical trial, BrainChild-01, that uses…” to “There is…” since it seems like you’re only talking about 1 clinical trial. Another sentence I would add to is in the “Outside Lab Activities” where you say “a program that gives local high school students a glimpse of…”; describe what aspect of the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital they are getting a glimpse of: the labs, the layout, the doctors, etc. Organization of the article is well done although I would suggest changing the title “Outside Lab Activities” which seems too vague to “Other Positions and Volunteer Work” to capture what the section describes. Also, I saw this on other Wikipedia pages—maybe bold where the name is on the citation in the selected publications page. Lastly, I think an awards section would be nice if he has received any.

·       The article does have 3+ reliable secondary sources, but I would try to look for more outside of the Seattle Children’s website to make the article more notable. I like how the article looks like other Wikipedia pages with the infobox at the top and categories at the bottom. Also, great job at linking various subjects throughout the article to other Wikipedia pages or websites to give the readers a place to look in case they don’t know what they are reading about.

·        Overall, I thought this article seems close to complete, well-written and organized with few, easy-to-fix errors. Some strengths of the article include the detailed descriptions of who Myron Evans II is and what he does. It seems that the author knows a lot about the topic. Some things that can be improved are adding more citations after presenting facts, including an award section, as well as more pictures.