User:ElizaJane11/Elisabeth Hevelius/EmKett Peer Review

General info
ElizaJane11
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ElizaJane11/Elisabeth Hevelius:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Elisabeth Hevelius:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content: I believe that the content added will benefit the article, as the original article does seem to completely skip her contributions to science.

Tone and Balance: The tone of this, so far, seems to lack neutrality. Phrases like "went beyond mere data collection" are very descriptive, but I believe could be made more neutral and fact-based by phrasing it in ways that give examples as to why it went beyond mere data collection. Some of the adjectives surrounding facts presented may cause the neutral information you are giving to sway on the more biased side, such as in "Her most notable achievement", "representing a significant advancement", "she actively engaged in the complex calculations", etc. I think that these descriptors do make the text more engaging, but they seem to be more opinion-based than fully factual.

Sources and References: Make sure that you use the citation tool instead of "[Cook, 2000]", "[Cook, "Johann and Elizabeth Hevelius, astronomers of Danzig" (Endeavour, 2000)]", "[Reser and McNeill, "Forces of Nature: The Women Who Changed Science" (2021)]", and "As Alan Cook noted in "Johann and Elizabeth Hevelius, astronomers of Danzig" (Endeavour, 2000)". It would be much easier for you and the reader to use the citation tool, which would then put all of your references in their own section. Make sure that you have a citation after every single sentence, as there are a few without. Each sentence must be based on facts you have found, instead of potential opinion.

Organization: It was very clear what was being added. My only recommendation is to add a header such as "Scientific Contributions" or something of the sort.

Overall: I think that this is very good and contains very important information that is currently missing from the original article. The main issues are citation formatting and tone. Otherwise, it is really good!