User:Gdegidi/Philippa Marrack/Korianh 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? Gdegidi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Philippa Marrack

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 1) Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 2) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 3) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * 4) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * 5) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * 1) Yes, the lead has been updates to reflect new content added by the peer
 * 2) The intro sentence is comprehensive and succinct, which is good! The syntax is a little strange so it doesn't flow very well. Maybe some rewording could be done here.
 * 3) The lead does not really describe the major sections of the article. more can be added here, perhaps a small paragraph introducing the major sections. refer to this page: How to create and manage a good lead section
 * 4) Everything in the lead seems to be present in the article! good work there.
 * 5) The lead is not overly detailed, everything in it serves a purpose and is relevant

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * 2) Is the content added up-to-date?
 * 3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * 4) Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * 1) After a first read, yes, all the content is relevant and nothing feels out of place. I love her biography section! It is really fun how it covers more than just her scientific pursuits.
 * 2) The content added is up-to-date, there are edits recent and up-to-date citations. Recent awards and publications have also been added to keep developments current.
 * 3) There doesn't seem to be anything missing, but the awards and publications sections both could stand to be trimmed down. There is a lot here and it is not easy to read since it is just two large lists.
 * 4) The article talks about a woman in STEM, which may not be one of the official equity gaps, but it does address a typically underrepresented type of person. I think it is an important addition to the wikipedia world.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the content added neutral?
 * 2) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 4) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * 1) The end of the section about her research interests refers to her work as "revolutionary and pioneering" which may be factual but could also read as biased
 * 2) There aren't any claims that point to significant bias, and beyond the previous comment, everything seems to be fairly neutral within the article.
 * 3) I think the entire article brings an underrepresented viewpoint to light as it focuses on a woman researcher in cell biology! I don't think anything here is overrepresented in the slightest.
 * 4) There is nothing that works to persuade the reader, beyond the potential of that one comment - but again, I don't think this is a huge deal, just a consideration to be made.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 2) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * 3) Are the sources current?
 * 4) Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 5) Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * 1) Yep! The content is all from resources that should be considered reliable.
 * 2) The sources are thorough, it covers a wide range of primary and secondary sources and gives a good variety of source types. I'm not sure that there is much more information available considering that this is a person (and one who is currently living and working)
 * 3) The sources are current and as recently published as 2019. There also have been sources retrieved in march of this year which is recent
 * 4) The sources don't obviously include historically marginalized individuals, but it is possible that this is present. I also am not sure how much information would be available on this topic that would come from one of these authors, but this is no fault of Gdegidi
 * 5) Yep! links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 2) Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * 3) Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * 1) All of the content that is not list-form I think is pretty strong. The lists of publications and awards are a lot to work through (which is partly the nature of these sections). I don't think that these sections need to be as long as they are and include every single award and publication available. Recent ones and major ones are enough.
 * 2) There are some areas where syntax could be cleaned up but there are no glaring grammatical issues.
 * 3) Yes, the organization is good - the sections are broken down nicely and nothing is in a section where it does not belong.

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


 * 1) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 2) Are images well-captioned?
 * 3) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * 4) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There was only one image and I believe it was there before Gdegidi got their hands on it! The one image is strong, I like it a lot.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * 1) Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * 2) What are the strengths of the content added?
 * 3) How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * 1) I think Gdegidi has done a great job with this article so far! Everything added has helped the article grow and become stronger. I believe there is of course more to be done, and there is going to be more to add as the life of this person continues, but overall good work so far
 * 2) The content added has given a more comprehensive picture of who Marrack is and why her work is relevant. I think everything added enhances the article and the general narrative and is strong.
 * 3) There are places where the order of sentences could be rearranged to help with flow. The sections that are lists could also stand to be trimmed down to make them easier to process.