User:Maloneel/Helen S. Mitchell/Ncsdr Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Maloneel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Maloneel/Helen S. Mitchell

Lead

 * The Lead been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * The Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * The Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * The Lead has kept similar information that is already present in the article.
 * The Lead concise.

Lead evaluation
I like that you kept the Lead concise, which is outlined better than the one in the article. The Lead briefly highlights the article's topic.

Content

 * The content added relevant to the topic.
 * The content added up-to-date.
 * There content that could be expanded on.
 * The article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Content evaluation
Adding sections really helped this article and breaking it down shows more about the importance of her life and work. The links provided for the references are up-to-date and works when I click it.

Tone and Balance

 * The content is neutral.
 * The claims are not bias.
 * There are viewpoints that are well-supported by secondary sources, but could potentially lean towards a more favored viewpoints. Adding a counter-point will allow for it to explore other viewpoints to keep it neutral.
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation
The "Fad Diets" sub section under "Career" can find a neutral tone by providing a rebuttal/criticism to her statements. I like that you have the link for Dr. Hey which she criticized which alleviates taking sides on this matter. I see that there can be a better balance if you can find a way to discuss what others thought of Helen S. Mitchell's critique.

Sources and References

 * All new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * The sources are current.
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The links work and you did a great job with your research. It looks like Helen S. Mitchell already have enough work to base your article on and all it really need is to be available on Wikipedia.

Organization

 * The content added is well-written.
 * The content added have minor grammatical errors.
 * The content added is well-organized.

Organization evaluation
The content added was appropriately organized in the basis of importance. I think if there's enough sources available about her life, a "Personal Life" or "Early Life" section can be added before "Education."

Overall impressions

 * The content added improved the overall quality of the article, but not quite complete.
 * The strength of the content added lies on the expansion of sections and description of Mitchell's scientific work.

Overall evaluation
You did an amazing work on detailing more about Mitchell's education and career. You used your sources very well and perhaps they can offer more information to expand on your article.