User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Kat Calvin/Nicholas Rondan Peer Review

General info
Anahi.0812, Crystat8462, DFloresVVC, Ewalker05
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:DFloresVVC/Kat Calvin
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Guiding questions:

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * Yes, the lead does introduce the individual and gets straight to the point.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * Yes it does.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?


 * Yes, the last sentence of the lead states Calvin's advocation for minority representation in the STEM field, but does not elaborate further on this subject through the rest of the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * The lead is concise, not adding too much information so that the article body sections can take center stage.

Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * The content is relevant to the topic.

Is the content added up-to-date?


 * Some of the content in the draft is up-to-date while there are areas of a couple sources dating back to 2013.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * Yes there is content missing. Specifically the areas of career and research, there are no dates posted so it makes it hard to follow the timeline of Calvin's career and research. Furthermore, her early life and education are lacking in specificity on what degree she has earned, as well as two sentences that start and end the same. "Calvin graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 2005. Calvin graduated from University of Michigan Law School in 2010."

Is the content added neutral?


 * The content added is neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * While there aren't any extreme violations of bias, the ending sentence in the lead can appear biased based on phrasing. "Additionally, Calvin advocates for advanced minority representation in the STEM field." This sentence lacks clarity although it has two citations.

Are the sources current?


 * Many of the sources are from 10+ years ago.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''


 * The links do work, but there is one link that is added twice in the references section.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * I only found two grammatical errors with two commas needing to be added here. Spread the Vote and Project ID, she lived in Seattle and Sierra Vista, AZ.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * In the first line of career and research, it states Calvin is an entrepreneur, author and activist, but it doesn't state specifically in what areas. What has she written? What is she an activist for?

'''How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?'''


 * There are 9 shown resources in your reference list for the draft, but one is added twice, meaning there are two unused sources from the bibliography not being utilized.

What are the strengths of the content added?


 * The strengths of the content added is it's clear statement in the lead, which is expanded upon in the career and research section.

How can the content added be improved?


 * The content can be improved by fixing a slight few grammatical errors, rephrasing of some sentences, adding more specifics into Calvin's career, education and activism stances, as well as more precise dates being included.

One thing I noticed is a slight repetition in phrasing from the two sentences of Calvin's importance of being a founder and co-founder of various areas of expertise. I think the strongest area is the career and research because it has the most information, but it does lack in specifics, such as a date timeline for multiple statements. Overall the article seems to have a neutral standpoint and remains unbiased.