User:KHuckaby1920/Sara Shettleworth/Ncsdr Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? KHuckaby1920
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KHuckaby1920/Sara Shettleworth

Lead

 * The Lead been updated to reflect the new content.
 * The Lead include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic, but can be cut down to be more concise.
 * The Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * The Lead includes new information that is not present in the article.
 * The Lead is it overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The Lead has vital information that highlights the article's major sections. However, it can be more concise by reframing the sentences. For example, "American-born, Canadian experimental psychologist..." can be trimmed to "American-Canadian experimental psychologist." If you add a "Personal Life" or "Early Life" section, then you can expand and say that she is American-born. Unless there is a source available that states if she insists to be labeled "American-born" then I think it's alright to make that change.

Content

 * The content added relevant to the topic.
 * The content added up-to-date.
 * There are content that is missing that can be added if there are sources to support it.
 * The article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because it addresses the work of a women scientist that has been historically marginalized in the field of science.

Content evaluation
There are contents that can be added such as her personal life because it is mentioned in the Lead. I think a section about her life and marriage can be added if there's enough sources to support it. There is also the mention of her research on sea turtles with her husband, but it was not mentioned again in any section. I think the sea turtle research would be an important topic to add.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * All viewpoints are well-represented.
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is fairly neutral. If there are available sources to show a critique or rebuttal to her research, then I think it would be beneficial to add it to the article to express other viewpoints and show balance between opposing studies and/or opinions.

Sources and References

 * All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Most sources are current.
 * The sources written can be improved by adding a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Most links work.

Sources and references evaluation
There is a good balance of primary and secondary sources. Although, most of the secondary sources are bias to Shettleworth's work. Perhaps adding opposing viewpoints may balance the article and bring a diverse spectrum of authors to the article.

Organization

 * The content added needs improvement to be more concise and clear.
 * The content added have minor grammatical errors.
 * The content added is well-organized, but can broken down to subsections.

Organization evaluation
There are some minor details that may not need to be addressed such as "professor emerita (feminine)..." sentence under the "University of Toronto" section.

The sections can be organized better in a way that will allow for expansion. Creating a "Career" or "Professional Work" section and then having the subsections of "Rat Research," "Sea Turtle Research," "University of Toronto" etc. will give you more room to be more organized according to her work since she had done multiple research and she may have more in the future.

Images and Media

 * The article include images that may enhance understanding of the topic.
 * The images can be captioned better.
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The images laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
I find the image very interesting. I think they can work where they are at if captioned well. I think the article could do without them. I do hope you find a photo of Shettleworth that adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. That would be very helpful (if available).

Overall impressions

 * The content added improved the overall quality of the article.
 * The "Education" section of the new content makes the article stronger.
 * The content added can be improved in organization and grammar.

Overall evaluation
I think you did a good job on utilizing your sources and improving the article that's been sitting since 2008. You have put a tremendous amount of effort into adding more information to the article which puts you in the right track.