User:Hcikim/Sylvia Speller/Emand2026 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Team 1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcikim/Sylvia_Speller?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Currently, there is only a sandbox draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Currently, there is only a sandbox draft

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead and Content
The lead does provide a good amount of information and relevant links to other Wikipedia pages. The lead does not include information on the other subsections of the article. Overall, this is a concise lead and the information in the lead seems up-to-date.

Information in the subsection "Teaching and Research Areas" includes information that is already in the lead and doesn't add anything that the lead hasn't already mentioned. See if you can find more on Speller's research or teaching interests and include more details on those in this subsection. Currently, there is not enough information here.

I think it's a great idea to include some of her publications, like you have. Why did you choose the ones you did for this Wiki article? There could be a bias in terms of which ones you chose to include. See if you can find which papers of hers are the most cited, as this might justify why you'd include them in the Wiki article. Conference presentations could go under the same subsection (if you tweak the title) or another subsection. You may also consider adding a subsection on any awards Speller has received.

The article also deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (women in STEM).

Tone and Balance
The content within the article is neutral and appears unbiased. The article does not try to persuade the reader in any way. The only bias that could exist is bias in which papers were chosen for the publication section.

Sources and References
There are only four sources. Consider adding others as you expand your article. Are there any news articles you might be able to find and use? I see there are a couple faculty profile pages cited. I did some searching and it's hard to find other sources for her besides research papers! The links seem to work fine.

Organization
The content is well-written, clear, and concise. I don't see grammatical errors.

Images and Media
See if you can find images for free use (see the Week 5 tutorial on the Wiki Course Dashboard for where to look for these). It might be helpful to include an image, but if you can't find one for free commercial use, I don't think it's necessary.

For New Articles
Based on the current sources, I would say that this article currently does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The list of sources may not be exhaustive (although sources on Speller are difficult to find). The article does follow the structure of other articles and includes links to other Wikipedia pages.

Overall Impression
This looks great so far! Work on adding more relevant content in the subsections I mentioned, if possible/if you can find relevant sources to add said content. You may need to read a few of her published papers (perhaps the more cited ones) to gather a greater sense of some of her interests and what she studies, more specifically, along with some of the key findings from her research. Then, said publications could be added to the References section.

I looked her up on Google Scholar and found a couple of her papers that have been cited by 100+ people. They might be worth taking a look at, if you can get access to them through the Northwestern library, especially because other sources for her seem tough to find.