User:MortonA18/Cheryll Tickle/Hgabrie Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MortonA18


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MortonA18/Cheryll Tickle


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cheryll Tickle

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No new content was added to the lead section
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence gives a great overview of the article's subject (Cheryll Tickle) as well as the article as a whole
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead references Tickle's carer, research, education, and honors which are all discussed later in the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead section is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, prior to the update, there was only one sentence in the Research section. This was greatly expanded on to include Tickle's major research interests and notable discoveries
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, most of the sources used are recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that does not belong however, the Personal Life section is a bit underdeveloped, but that could be due to the lack of reliable information available on this topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article is about a woman scientist, which does fall into the category of historically underrepresented populations, especially in the field of science.
 * The article is about a woman scientist, which does fall into the category of historically underrepresented populations, especially in the field of science.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the information is presented factually without bias. The relevant research is summarized, and several different examples of Tickle's research are included.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, everything in the article was presented in a completely neutral way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all information is cited, but additional citations could be included within each paragraph, not just at the end. However, I know that it is difficult to find multiples sources to support one paragraph as this is something I struggled with when updating my page.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most are from within the last decade or so
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Most of the sources are publications by Tickle, so there could be a more diverse spectrum of sources.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No
 * 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, the content is very well written and provides a great overview into Tickle's career and major contributions. Everything is clear and readable while also retaining the scientific language necessary for the topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections are organized logically and divided according to the information presented.

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 included
 * 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 for 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?
 * Yes, the update has greatly improved the quality of the article. There were really only a handful of sentences before content was added, but now there is a clear picture of Tickle's life, career, and legacy to the scientific world.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The research section is very strong and does a great job of describing the kind of work Tickle was involved in, and includes many wikilinks for reference since the topic can be confusing.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only thing that could be improved is the personal life section. However, people not in the public eye often do not have their personal life documented by reliable sources, so I understand this could be difficult.