User:Latkegyoza/Frances Matilda Abbott/Catdaly00 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) Latkegyoza
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Latkegyoza/Frances Matilda Abbott

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 concise and describes the topic. It establishes notability by describing her as "the first woman from Concord, NH, to receive a bachelor's degree" and a contributor to various magazines. Based on this, I was unsure whether she really was notable, but later in the article she's described as being listed in multiple lists of notable people - perhaps including this information in the lead could help to better establish her notability early on. The lead doesn't really describe the major sections of the article, although the major sections reflect the different aspects of her life described in the lead: there's a section on her work as a suffragist and another section on her work as a writer/naturalist. All of the information in the lead is found elsewhere in the article as well. The lead summarizes the most important information of the article, although I think it could mention that her suffragist work also included membership in many suffragist organizations along with her writings.

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
All of the content is relevant. I looked at the sources, and most of them are from the late 1800s and early 1900s, with the only more recent sources not mentioning Abbott at all (that I could find), but the content is up-to-date in terms of her entire life. Assuming that the sources reflect all or most of the available literature on Abbott, I wouldn't say there's any missing content. The author mentions being able to list out the women's suffrage organizations that Abbott was a part of, which I would encourage doing. This article deals with Wikipedia's gender equity gap by representing a female scientist.

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
The content appears neutral. I don't think any of the claims were biased towards a particular position, although I was unsure about the line "she seemed to worry about declining marriage rates." Does the source explicitly say that Abbott worried about declining marriage rates, or did the author draw this conclusion? If the former, I would write "she worried about declining marriage rates," and if the latter, I would change the wording to reflect what the source actually said. The source here appears to be Abbott's own writings, rather than a secondary source, so I'd be careful to present her views as she wrote them. If she explicitly wrote "I worry" or something similar, I think it's fine to write "she worried," but if not, I think summarizing her views as "she worried" might be considered original research if that's not what she explicitly wrote. Similarly with the next line "she recognized the importance of college education for women," I might suggest a different word than "recognized." While I personally agree that college education can be valuable, I think the verb "recognize" implies that the "importance of college education for women" is an objective fact, and this could be an example of including one's own values into the article. Maybe write instead, "she believed that college education is important for women" if this is something that she said. It doesn't appear that there are over- or under-represented viewpoints. There are a few sources that the author relies on more heavily than others, but these appear to be the secondary sources written about Abbott which would understandably contain more consolidated information. The content doesn't appear to persuade the reader in any particular 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 are numerous primary sources, but these were used to support statements about what Abbott herself thought and wrote. It appears that most of the actual biographical information comes from secondary sources. There are a decent number (11) sources, which I assume is thorough. I have not myself attempted to search the literature. Most of the sources are over 100 years old, but they are current for when Abbott lived. I don't think the sources are incredibly diverse - 6 of the sources are primary sources from Abbott herself. She also seems to be more of a locally-recognized figure within New Hampshire, so it makes sense that some of the other sources are also from New Hampshire. The links work. If more sources exist, I would recommend finding/using them.

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 is well-written. The sentences are generally concise and not long-winded. I didn't notice any grammatical/spelling errors. Not sure if this is a real issue, but in the sentence "Her father was descended from early settlers of Concord and was elected mayor of Concord six times, while her mother had once stayed at the transcendentalist utopian Brook Farm community" I wasn't sure whether the "while" might be better replaced by an "and," since "while" implies a connection between the two clauses, yet the two clauses are independent and unrelated to each other. This might be a matter of personal preference though - I am not a grammar expert. The content is well-organized into multiple sections. I don't think there are any missing sections. I might suggest changing the "Personal life" section to "Later life" to correspond better to the "Early life" section. The article is organized chronologically, so I wouldn't include "Early life" in the same section as "Personal life" but I think that the information under "early life" and "personal life" are thematically similar as personal life, so maybe renaming the "personal life" category could better distinguish this category.

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
This article doesn't include 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?

New Article Evaluation
This article seems to meet the notability requirements - the article is supported by three secondary sources specifically about Abbott. I don't know how exhaustive the list of sources is. The article appears to follow the patterns of similar articles - it has an infobox and section headings. The article links to other articles.

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
This is a new article so it is more complete. The article could be made more complete if there are more sources available, but if there aren't, then I suppose it can't be made more complete. My biggest point of concern is whether the strong use of primary sources could mean that the author might've fallen into doing original research, so I would recommend that the author check that all statements come directly from the sources.