User:Garcia.nina/Dina Lévi-Strauss/Angela.H.Carranza 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)
 * Topic: Dina Lévi-Strauss
 * By (username) : Garcia.nina
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Garcia.nina/Dina Lévi-Strauss

Lead
Guiding questions:

The Lead is overall concise with the flow of their writing. Its easy to follow and see how it all connects. The introductory sentence clearly lets the reader known about whom they are reading about. The inclusion of french pronunciation was a nice touch. The Lead doesn't have section, but the information all connects together where nothing is to specific in which it could be made into its own selection. More information or specific would be needed. I believe this is a new page, so all the information is new and would be the first information on the anthropologist.

Content
Guiding questions:

The content within the wiki page is give a clear overview of Lévi-Strauss that could found in the beginning section of any wiki page on a person. The citations showed that the content came main reliable sources. The ending is a little abrupt and would could have ended with information on her death (died 1999). The phrase "they later divorced" seems out of place only since there was a small part of her husbands work and not crediting her before going back to talking about the divorce. Maybe move those sentences about the divorce up along with "they later divorced", making it a mini paragraph of its own. Overall, the information connects and is consistent.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The draft's tone is neutral. It provides the information without 'picking a side' or 'leaning towards any one direction'. There aren't any claims or controversies. There is no particular position taken or needed to be taken. The information is pretty straightforward and to the point. There is no attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

All of the information looks to be from reliable sources. Some are old but those relate to the work done by Lévi-Strauss (and that was in the 1930s). There are few but are well separate out through out the page and give a clear picture/timeline of her work.

Organization
Guiding questions:

The information is well written. Its concise, clear, and easy to read. There are a couple words that I believe need to be capitalized (mainly other fields of science/social science). I did not see any spelling errors (a couple words were in french, but two were linked to other wiki pages, so I assume they are spelled correctly). Grammar wise, it looks fine. Maybe the first sentence could be cut into two, but that may be up to preference. It doesn't appear to look like a run-on sentence. Its well organized as far as knowing when to make a new paragraph. Again only part that could changes it the phrase "they later divorced" and moving those sentences about the divorce up along with "they later divorced", making it a mini paragraph of its own.

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

There are no images included.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

The article seems well done and overall well written. Its a new wiki which means it would need more information to be complete like other wiki pages on people, but for the project its good. The content really let reader know about someone who would otherwise be ignored by history (since her ex has been taught more often). Having this wiki page in general is an improvement to the important out there about female anthropologist.