User:Kiarapech/Women in Medical Philanthropy in California/Giannamadden Peer Review

General info
Kiarapech
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kiarapech/Women_in_Medical_Philanthropy_in_California?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Does not exist.

Lead
Unfortunately this article does not have an evident lead section, which would be more helpful in getting a sense of what the writing will be about and what we as readers should expect going forward. To help with the lead section I'd like to give you a list of some ideas:


 * Philanthropy's impacts on the state of California
 * Introduce any controversies if any about women being in a philanthropy role
 * Give an overview about what philanthropy is, even if it's linking another Wikipedia article that talks about and defines philanthropy entirely. But, make sure not to go into too much detail about the philanthropy article if you decide to hyperlink it because then that would be considered plagiarizing.

Content
Overall, I would say that the content that is on the page, is relevant and up to date, especially since Betty Irene Moore passed away last year in 2023, a lot of the articles that the creator put in were from 2023. While I appreciate the fact that there's a personal and philanthropy background about each woman in this article, the one thing I'd say that this article is lacking would have to be lacking would have to be maybe a history of Californian philanthropy section or maybe just some sort of historical background so that way we get something else other than just people. Another thing that I think would be helpful for this article was that you put in the reason for why Betty Irene Moore was passionate about her philanthropy work, I think adding more of those reasons for the other people that you mention in your article would be something really meaningful to add.

I think that in terms of addressing necessary equity gaps, I think that this article definitely addresses them because its a niche and unique topic that not a lot of Wikipedia articles would be able to cover. While their is an article on philanthropy, I think that the topic that the writer has chosen has represented a specific content gap of addressing a gender gap, especially in involving more cisgender women and their voices.

Tone and Balance
Overall, I would say that the content that was added was neutral and didn't sway to one particular side or the other. I also think that this person did a really good job of making sure that topics weren't over or underrepresented. Also, I think the article doesn't let people believe one specific viewpoint over another.

Sources and References
While I think that this article has some good sources that accurately reflect what occurred for each of the women in the medical philanthropy field I think one thing that would be important to do would be to find some sources that have some statistical information about the financial contributions that they have made. While I do appreciate the fact that you incorporated how much each person donated, I think that some statistics about how many people they impacted for example would be something that allows us to see how significant each woman's contribution was.

A source that would be interesting to look at: https://dillerteenawards.org/about-the-awards/


 * This source covers howe the Helen Diller Foundation as been donating money to Jewish teenagers' effort to change the world through leadership skills.
 * I think that definitely because when you tried to link the Helen Diller Foundation to another Wikipedia article and it didn't work you have room to go into a lot of detail here
 * I think that this would be a unique take to say that not only was the foundation very involved in medical philanthropy but also motivating people to use the leaderships skills that they have to make the world a better place

I'd say that with the sources that this person has currently are up to date and are recent in terms of covering this topic.

Organization
I would say that the article overall is pretty clear to read and understand, however, I think there's some grammatical errors that I think would be important to cover. What I noticed in some of the background sections of each person was the sentence structure that there were some grammatical issues. One example of this would be in the Betty Irene Moore section of this person's article. The first sentence reads as "Moore was born in 1928, Betty Irene Whitaker." I think this sentence reads a little weirdly and would be better structured something along the lines of "Betty Irene Whitaker was born in 1928 but, later became Betty Irene Moore when she married her husband Gordon Moore."

Other than that one little piece, I would say that the way that this person organized the way that the article was written was very well thought out and makes sense for the topics that they are covering.

Images and Media
The person who wrote this article did not incorporate media or images so this peer review section will be skipped.

For New Articles Only
Yes, the article has more than the minimum requirement of sources needed to pass the notability test on that front. The article actually has 8 sources which is way about the minimum requirement. While I think that there's a lot of sources that the writer listed and all of the links worked when I clicked them, I think what I noticed was a lot of them were websites so maybe try going into a library catalog. It would be very helpful as you would be able to get more viewpoints incorporated into your writing.

Some key search ideas:


 * Helen Diller Foundation
 * Medical philanthropy AND Women AND Helen Diller Foundation

I will say that for this article they did a very nice job of organizing the way that they wanted it to read for the audiences, however I think the thing that it most important to incorporate has to be a lead section. I understand that it is difficult to do a lead section on what might initially seem to be a broad topic, but I think that this will really improve the article because it really does have a lot of potential.

Overall Impressions
I think that the article is off to a good start as it has a decent skeleton to work from. However, I think the thing that needs to be added is definitely a lead section as this will allow for readers to get a clear understanding of the content that you want to cover. I also noticed that your article is missing a Philanthropy section for your last person Lynne Benioff, I don't know if that was intentional or not, but based off of the flow of your other sections, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to incorporate that missing philanthropy section. Additionally, I noticed that you attempted to link the Helen Diller Foundation to another Wikipedia article to give us more information, however no results popped up on my end. Therefore, I think you have some room to go into detail on what the Helen Diller Foundation is as well as give us a little bit of background of how it was founded, what it supports, and other things along a similar line.

This is an article that has been started from scratch so I think that adding this article gives way for more women's contributions and voices to be visible on the Wikipedia platform, which definitely fills in a much needed content gap. On a more positive note, I think that this article does have some strengths that are important to note. I think that the article's organization of how it is written with a little background section and then a philanthropy section is very well thought out. I also thought that this article did a very nice job of keeping a neutral tone, which I know for any kind of expository writing can be hard to do.