User:Korianh/Suzanne Eaton/Gdegidi Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Korianh
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Suzanne Eaton

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it introduces Suzanne Eaton, but sentence could be stronger
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The contents of the article are listen
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no; Lead should be updated to be more of a summary of what is to come
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Only one sentence

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, each section of content is relevant but can be improved by adding more detail and references
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it cites information from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More information of about her early life and education/ career would be beneficial
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes; it addresses Women Scientists

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, very neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? potentially biased on the telling of her death and the investigation
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Her sister is quoted in the personal life section; more viewpoints and more statements of Eaton's will strengthen the article
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? good sources so far
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? More references should be included that do not have to do with her disappearance and death.
 * Are the sources current? Most sources are from 2019
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? An abundance of references related to her disappearance and less about her career and education/ research
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links I randomly selected worked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well-written, just needs to be built upon
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors but content gaps in each section-- each section can be improved
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections are well-organized; can potential be re-ordered for more clarity

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has a lot of potential to be improved in each section; the references should also be checked and added to
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Each important section is addressed- (i.e. Early life and education, career and research, awards and honors, personal life, disappearance and death, memorial fund, references)
 * How can the content added be improved? Each section can be added to and improved with more detailed information and references.