User:Gdegidi/Philippa Marrack/MicrobiologyKat2020 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

 * I'm reviewing Gdegidi's article on Philippa Marrack
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Philippa Marrack

Lead

 * The lead is well-written and concise. Gdegidi has added to the lead to reflect new information about Pippa. Gdegidi added information on where Pippa currently works and her titles at those workplaces. The lead's introductory sentence is concise and introduces the article well. It explains who Pippa Marrack is and why she is a well-known scientist. The lead is also good because it doesn't contain information that isn't already in the article. There are some minor issues, however. The lead doesn't not include a brief description of the article's major sections. It only offers a list of the sections in the contents box.

Content

 * The content added is very relevant to the topic and has greatly added to the detail given in the article. All the content was placed in the correct sections and reflects up-to-date information. Because this article is a bibliography of Pippa Marrack, it deals with one of wikipedia's equity gaps: the bibliographies of male scientists greatly outnumber the bibliographies of female scientists. Overall, the content of this article has been greatly improved by Gdegidi's additions and I can see very few places of improvement.

Content evaluation
Well done.

Tone and Balance

 * The content is written neutrally and there's no bias. There's no attempt to persuade the reader. The author does a good job of just explaining who Pippa is and what she's accomplished.

Tone and balance evaluation
No change needed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * The citation links work and appear to be from suitable sources. The sources are current, including sources from 2020 and 2019. There's a large number of sources and they appear to be used evenly throughout the article.

Organization

 * The content is organized logically and is easy to follow. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * I don't believe they added a picture, unless the picture in the article was from them.

Overall impressions

 * The content added has greatly improved the quality of the article. It is much more complete now. There's a huge amount of details that the additions bring to the article. The additions are written concisely and with no bias.

Overall evaluation
This article is so much better now.