User:IC.Student/Violet Rucroft/EnvrSci Peer Review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * All components of the article are relevant to the topic and the focus is appropriately narrow.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral, presenting a balanced and factual account of Rucroft's life without bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The balance of the Early Life/Music Career sections with the Conservation work section seems like it could be adjusted by either adding more detail to her work with Forest and Bird or by including less detail related to her music career. The introduction section mentions only her conservation work and awards, which leads me to believe that this was her largest impact/residual legacy, and therefore that section of her bibliography should hold the most information or weight.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The first link just brings you to the database used to search for birth records, not the specific record for Rucroft, not sure if there is any way around this?
 * Each of the sources is used properly, incorporating relevant and neutral information that properly portrays the perspective of the sources.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The majority of sources utilized by the author are historical publications in local newspapers (the Waikato Times, Auckland Star and Evening Post) with additions from Forest and Bird's archives, award records and birth and cemetery records, all of which are reliable and appropriate.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * All information is up to date from reputable sources. If possible, more information on her family life, potential siblings and if she had any children would be helpful to include. Additionally, if further research could substantiate a claim by Forest and Bird that she was the first woman in their organization to found a branch, that would be a really interesting contribution to include.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)