User:Mishyback/Fátima of Madrid/Sage cat 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? Mishyback
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Fátima de Madrid

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 updated and provides succinct, relevant information about Fatima de Madrid's work, accomplishments, and historical context. It current makes it clear that Fatima's existence as a figure is contested, which is an important point for this article. My only recommendation is to include more citations in this section, since there is only one in the last paragraph so it is unclear where the information in the previous sentences were obtained from.

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 is very relevant to Fatima and appears up to date as there are some sources from 2016. If there is further information, I would have liked to learn more about why Fatima is contested beyond scholars who have made claims. What further evidence is there that could have influenced these scholars to make these claims that she is a myth? For instance, why is it that her most famous work, "Corrections from Fatima", is so notable yet there has been no copy found? How do we know of its existence and deemed it to be famous or notable despite the fact? I could imagine that this might contribute to her contested existence, and it would be informative if there was more information about this in the article since I have some of these lingering questions. The article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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 is written with a neutral tone and does not seem to be particularly biased. Overall, it seems to be a well balanced article in terms of viewpoints offered.

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 some parts of the article where I think there oculd be more citations. The lead and the some sentences in the career section I think could use a citation so the audience knows where to find the information. Also, I think using some more sources would be good if you can find them. Perhaps finding some citations from reputable organizations could offer some more insights, some that I found from a quick search:

https://www.girlmuseum.org/fatima-de-madrid/#:~:text=Fatima%20of%20Madrid%20(10th%20or,the%20works%20credited%20to%20her.

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/13611/404110/040609_Varela.pdf/299a93c6-9166-475d-a97c-e16ec0d40a0e

https://www.sea-astronomia.es/sites/default/files/archivos/proceedings9/PLENARIAS/marquezi/F-marquez_perezi.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/498161a

I think one of the authors of the sources currently cited are a woman, so it may be insightful to look at backgrounds from the authors above (I haven't checked myself though).

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
I think it is well organized into sections, I like how her career is presented first followed by historicity since people may be initially turned off from learning about her said astronomical accomplishments if her contestedness is presented first. The writing is pretty free of grammar and spelling errors (not any that I could spot).

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
Currently there aren't images, but I can imagine it might be hard to find images for her! If there's any drawings around of her (?) that might be cool.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
As a whole, I really liked this article and thought it was easy to read and concise. I would say that there are some sentences that could use more citations to avoid ambiguity of the source information, and also obtaining more diverse sources (if possible). Content wise, I think that finding more sources and/or explanations for her historicity can help provide more context.