User:Emma Adriana/Women in philosophy/MD380 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emma Adriana


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emma%20Adriana/Women_in_philosophy?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Women in philosophy

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.)

Lead

In the article, the lead seems quite long. Although the first paragraph summarizes important points about the article, the other paragraphs give summarizes about different sections of the article. It might be better for the lead to only include a summary of the whole article.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic. The statistics that will be added to the "Report from the US" section give more up-to-date information about the topic. The new section, "Reasons for Underrepresentation" gives an explanation and brings something new to the article. The three new philosophers that will be added to the article is also relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

The newly added content is both balanced and neutral. The writing is similar to the writing in the article.

Sources and References

All of links to the sources are working. The sources are also reliable. However, there are not many sources used in total. It would be better to add a different source when possible.

Additionally, this sentence, "Historically, women were only recently been granted the right to pursue a higher education," (in the "Reasons for Underrepresentation" section) needs a citation or a Wikipedia link about this right.

Organization

The content added is well organized. There are indications as to where all the content will be added in the article.

There are some grammatical errors in the "Reasons for Underrepresentation section". For example, instead of "Historically, women were only recently been granted the right to pursue a higher education", "Historically, women were only recently granted..." would be better. Also, in the sentence "This myth is about perception; Kings believes...", the first statement can be a sentence.

Overall Impressions

Overall, these contributions are relevant to the article. They add important information about the topic and improve the quality of the article. The new section adds a valuable aspect of the topic to the article. Above are ways this new content could be improved.