User:Gmmuell/Beth Levine (physician)/Ancicco Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gmmuell


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gmmuell/Beth Levine (physician)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Beth Levine (physician)

Evaluate the drafted changes
For the whole live article: Reading the lead section of the article I recognize that Beth Levine was an important physician who was clearly very influential in her field. However, after reading the rest of the article regarding her research accomplishments and awards, I feel like the lead section of the article could benefit from some mention of the amount of awards and honors she had. The lead section just mentions that she was “described as a pioneer” in her field but makes no mention of the number or caliber of her awards that demonstrate objectively, just how well recognized she was.

I feel that the article focuses very heavily on her awards and would benefit from more biographical information about Dr. Levine. Personally, I am very curious about how a medical doctor got so heavily involved in the sheer amount of research that she did and what exactly she researched. The article could benefit from a more in-depth description of her research interests and possibly the mention of some of her most influential publications or accomplishments.

I love the tables that detail her awards, when she won them, and who they were awarded by because I feel like it breaks up what would probably be just a very large wall of text if it were in paragraph form. However, I think this section would benefit from some more description of the caliber of some of her most important awards. Perhaps if you took some of the most important awards and described them a bit before the table, and why Dr. Levine won them, it would be really interesting.

As far as information relevance and neutrality I think this article does a good job with that and you don’t need to make any major edits on that front. However, there is one sentence in the lead section that could be considered potentially unneutral. “Levine was described as a major pioneer in the field of modern mammalian autophagy.” This is a little close to the “Some people say…” example of unneutral information that the Wiki training gives us.

Overall, I think the most major things this article could benefit on is the addition of more biographical information that explains Dr. Levine’s research involvement, accomplishments, and her awards.

For your proposed changes: So far all you have in your sandbox is the first "lead section." I like the changes you've made and how you've changed most of the information to be more general and contain more biographical information than the lead section on the live page. I feel like it's easier to read and provides some more information on Dr. Levine that adds dimension to the article. Reading your edited section I think you have a great platform to go more in depth into the things I mentioned above.