User:Kelliecarblue/Peter and Rosemary Grant/AnonymousSphinx Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kelliecarblue


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kelliecarblue/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Peter and Rosemary Grant

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.)

Note:

It is my understanding that you are working on splitting up the article in to 2 articles, one for each individual, after reading the talk page's discussion on the idea of splitting the article and reading the published article itself, I believe the article should not be split. Updating the current article would reduce the repeated information in both, if 2 were made from this article and would reduce the need to switch between 2 or more articles for more information, and it makes sense as they are notable as a couple. However, there should be added organization and more fleshing out of information on each individual within this article, as work they did before meeting each other and work on their own should be noted in respect for the individuals themselves and for the overall purpose of noting important information on the article's subject(s). I wish to note this to you so you understand my personal bias towards not splitting the articles and my understanding going into your draft and following review. My peer review will be biased by my support of updating the current article as from your draft, it appears the main change is the separation of some of the information in the article by individual, I do not see many, if any, additions aside from notes when compared to the current published article.

Review:

The separation of their research by individual and joint research is a good addition as it helps with organizing and bringing attention to their work as individuals, not just as a couple. I also do agree with your note that the Education and career/Societies and Academies sections need citations, that would make a solid addition to the article's reliability. I do feel that the Joint research text should be in both articles evenly, instead of just one and summarized/referenced in the other as if they both contributed to something an we cannot predict which of the 2 articles a reader is more likely to go to if searching for their joint work, then it should all be in both, such as your note on Books: "can be included in both articles". The overall article feels neutral and well-sourced.