User:Jrpaul7/Saveria Campo/Charandeep1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

jrpaul7


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jrpaul7/Maria Saveria Campo
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Saveria Campo

Evaluate the drafted changes
{| class="wikitable"
 * Peer review
 * Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, all information is relevant and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it all looks good.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. There are two typos. Two periods in the second to last sentence, and oncology (in the last sentence) does not need to be capitalized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources are from many time periods, but there are a few from as recent as 2021.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, involves a women in science.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes they do, although there are a few other sources that could be added.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) All sources appear to be the best available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few typos. Typos in the lead section have been addressed in the lead portion of this peer review. One other typo in the Later life and death section, which has an unnesccary comma in the second to last sentence.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, and all sections are pertinent to the page.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Sources do represent all available literature, but it does provide a good variety.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Section headings and links are present. No infobox present.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Could use more links, especially in the Research portion of the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is much better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Elaborates much more on the research available.
 * How can the content added be improved? Images, if an image that is not under copyright law can be found. More links to other articles would also be helpful. An infobox would also be helpful.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }