User:Gdegidi/Philippa Marrack/Vrwclemson 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: Philipa Marrack

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence does a good job of describing who she is, except for the latter portion “best known for…” The information that follows is not easy to read and isn’t described in the biography, so I would perhaps keep it to T-Cell and B-cell research. The rest of the article does not talk about her discovery of the mechanism behind Toxic Shock Syndrome, superantigens, or on autoimmune disease. The sentence is also very long. In addition, I am not sure if her collaboration with her husband is relevant unless she always collaborates with him. Her current position or university could also be added to the Lead.

Content evaluation
I am not entirely sure if the content is all up-to-date, although the article does note an award she received in 2019. I feel like all of the information is relevant, but work could be done in the Biography section. Perhaps add her accomplishments/findings/lab work to her postdoctoral work at UC-San Diego—maybe it was on Toxic Shock mentioned in the Lead. I am also not sure if the Professional activities section is fulfilled, or how it differentiated from her positions at universities described under the Bibliography section.

Tone and balance evaluation
There isn’t any direct bias or statements not supported by an article, but some of the citations cite her original work—which I do not think is the best source. Also, what defines her “Significant Papers” section listed as ‘significant?’ In other words, why did the article authors decide that these were the significant?

Sources and references evaluation
Many of the sources are backed by primary sources, which is an identified problem with the article. This is understandable, given that Phillipa Marrack is still alive, but with her many awards there is most likely more information about her to be found. While many of these articles are written by Marrack, they are up-to-date, but the diversity in authors and sources could be improved. All of the links work.

Organization evaluation
Since she is still alive I would switch much of the language to present—specifically under her Biography for example: instead of “she completed” I would say “she has completed.” The information in the article, overall is not easy to read. The award section has already been noted to be “cleaned up.” I think the Biography could be organized a better, going chronologically in time. It is a bit choppy as the end—“Marrack plays the piano and is a blues guitarist.” The last two sentences could be better integrated. I would reconsider the “Professional Activities” section as well. Her Awards & Significant Papers sections are relevant and should be kept, but should match each other in style.

Overall evaluation
I think the made improvements are great! But the content could be improved in the sources used, grammar, and addition of her described achievements in the lead. Some sections could be cleaned up and reorganized as well.