User:Korianh/Suzanne Eaton/Kjernig 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? 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? No new info added yet to lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead needs more information to summarize the content of the page.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There may be too much personal info from singular sources that does not provide connections to her notable contributions to the scientific community.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes: female scientist.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, but there is still some biased wording from the original page.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not heavily, but maybe slightly biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Personal life info is overrepresented while scientific contributions are underrepresented.
 * 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? Not enough new content
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I just noticed one with the quotation by her sister.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization could be better; I don't memorial fund should be its own heading since there isn't enough info on the topic.

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? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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 great sources and is mostly well-written. The suggestions in your sandbox would really strengthen the article!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Well-written, abundant sources, writing flows well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Organization could be improved, and the inclusion of personal details and death could be reworded to be more unbiased and reflective of her main contributions.