User:Gdegidi/Philippa Marrack/Skthoma 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
Lead evaluation

The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer? It does clearly describe the topic, but it is too specific, and brings up information that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is not a concise description describing each section of the article.

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and up-to-date. There does not appear to be any missing content, and the article does deal with an equity gap by addressing a female scientist.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone appears nice and neutral, without attempting to screw a reader's opinion a certain way about the subject. There are no viewpoints in the biographical article.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are ample and appear to be well sourced and reliable. The sources are diverse in their authorship and origin, contributing to the credibility of the information and the article. The links are functional and well-placed.

Organization evaluation
The article could afford to be reorganized. Career, research interests, and professional activities all seem to overlap but are listed as different headings. These distinctions could be made more clear. The content is, however, well-written without obvious grammatical errors.

Images and media evaluation
My peer did not add new images or media, but the current picture on the article is well placed and cited.

New Article Evaluation
This article was not new.

Overall evaluation
The lead is a bit too detailed. It provides more details about the specifics of her work than are necessary to introduce her as a researcher. The specifics of her research are also not discussed anywhere else in the article. It may be more effective to have a more general lead and discuss the specifics of her research in a separate section. The article could be reorganized. Professional activities is a redundant section heading since the majority of the biography section also discusses professional activities. The awards section seems complete and the references section is strong.