User:Kristinbell/Margaret H. Harper/BranMet 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) Kristinbell
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kristinbell/Margaret H. Harper

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is very concise and tells essential details concerning Margaret Harper. It brings it right to the point, that she helped develop first computer compilers.It does not include any unnecessary information. It could be bulked up a bit with addition of where she helped Grace Hopper develop the compiler for at least quick reference as a lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content seems relevant to the topic of Harper. Detailing the information of her early life and then her career. There probably isn't the information for such a question, but I wonder is there more information as to what Harper did prior to her publication of "Subroutines", where did she work, what did she do? It doesn't seem like she was married and her only relative was her adopted brother so not much there. What did these places look like?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
There does not seem to be any content that is toned non-neutral. I do not find the content trying to make me thinking a specific way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There seem to be many separate sources, which reflect the available literature on the topic. There seems to be women authors and other authors of marginalized groups. Checking the links they seem to work and the sources seem current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content seems well written and I did not notice any glaring editorial errors. However I think the career section could be reorganized. The first section/sentence seems glaring or jarring from the rest of the section. It needs either a little restructuring or beefing up. Otherwise it feels jarring to switch the topic from Harper's education to talking about the work she did with Grace Hopper. It might be helpful to focus the area on Harper rather than Hopper. Otherwise I feel like the focus is on Hopper.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The added images add to the topic. Assumedly there are no photos of Harper or her lab, perhaps see if there are any of Hooper, and Grace anywhere. I know you've probably already searched and anything you find is under lock and key.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Having helped to develop a computer compiler makes Harper notable and working on the same team as Grace Hooper also makes her notable. There are at least 3 secondary sources that touch on Harper's work and the work of those around her. Knowing how much work you've done trying to find every little source and crumb, I will make an estimated guess that these are the sources. It contains and infobox and is linked to Grace Hooper and Richard K Ridgway.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
As mentioned above a reorganization/beefing up/reordering of the career section to make sure that is feels like Harper's section. Just a little bit of an intro sentence to introduce that section as it pertains to Harper, "After leaving college Harper pursued career at blank..." . The article overall is very well done, the author seems to know a lot about their scientist. It is properly sourced. It contains enough information to make me more interested to look at the overall team that Harper worked with.