User:Kaitlynne.Chaffin/Dorothy Reed Mendenhall/Brianna Fleshman Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kaitlynne.Chaffin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kaitlynne.Chaffin/Dorothy Reed Mendenhall
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dorothy Reed Mendenhall

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.)

Overall Impression
I think the content added to the original article really helps the reader get a better feel of the topic and helps them understand it more. I like that more was added about her major accomplishment and professional life. The sentences added to each section make sense and flow really well together. The information is backed by relevant sources. The article expresses the challenge Mendenhall faced as a minority and showed how she came to overcome it. I think the article could benefit from some of the changes and additions mentioned in this peer review. I would also like to know more about Dorothy Reed Mendenhall's life. If there is more information on her work or how her worked has left an impact on life after her initial discoveries, this would help extend the article.

Lead
The lead looks untouched by the editor, probably because no new sections have been added and need to be included. Overall the lead seems to give a solid overview of the article as a whole. The first sentence tells you exactly what the article is about. A sentence about the personal life section could be included in the lead in order to give the reader more details about what the article entails, and a sentence about how she was oppressed by men during her time might add some depth. Since the article talks heavily on the sexist challenges she faced I thin it should be included in the lead. Also, the parenthesis are the "Reed-Sternberg cell" can be taken out. The lead is concise and includes topics listed in the article; it only needs a few more sentences to tie the whole article together.

Content
The content in the article is a great representation of Dorothy Reed Mendenhall. All the information seems up-to-date and relevant. There are some sentences in the content that I think can be discarded such as the one in the personal life section about how she "...she wished to start a life...yearned for for a sense of normalcy in her life". I don't think it is important to understand the section. I like that you explained the hardships that Dorothy had to endure during her time working around men, but some sentences make claims that may come across as un-neutral. The sentence such as: "...they thought that a medical education was 'wasted'..." makes a claim about the peers she worked with. Wikipedia advises not to make claims and to stay neutral. I'm not exactly certain on what the neutrality rules are on a these types of statements. They may be okay to use, but if there not then you can substitute them out for say that she faced many challenges by being a women in the work field and being treated differently by her peers. I do think the article does explain very well that she used that criticism to excel her forward. Through the article the content fits with the relevant topic and gives a good overview of Mendenhall's life. I especially like the section about the work she has done. I think it explains a lot of her achievements and who she is as a physician and scientist. All the facts seem to have a source attached to it.

The information added to the previous articles helps to explain more and is comprehensive. The additions to each section make sense and add more to the article as a whole.

Tone and Balance
I think the overall tone is neutral. As for the sentence discussed in the content section I do think that may come off as leaning towards one side more than another, but I could be wrong. The article does a good job in balancing the negative (hardships faced due to gender) and the positive (she overcame these hardships). I don't think the article is persuading in any way, which is good. I do think it is important to state that she did face oppression and the article mostly does a good job in doing it.

Sources and References
All of the content seems to be backed up by the sources used in the article. Most of the sources are peer reviewed and the article reflects what is said in them. The information in the sources seem up-to-date and current. Each source seems to be written from a different author which gives the article diverse perspectives. Citations are correct and easily lead the reader to the source. The sources are reliable and include a lot of information about the topic of the article.

Organization
I think the organization is great! I like that each section kind of goes in order of Dorothy's life. The sections transition between each other nicely and are relevant to the topic. Your organization has inspired me to better organize my own article. Everything looks well written and grammatically correct. The language seems to flow together, which is great especially since it was written by two different authors.

Images and Media
The image already in the article is good and I don't think the article needs anything else. The image is well cited and the citation is very informative. The image gives the reader a break from looking at the words, and helps them relate the sections to a person. The image also follows Wikipedia's copyright rules.