User:NTC08/Sylvie Retailleau/Remycrowley 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) NTCo8
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sylvie Retailleau

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No additions.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no lead since this article has not been created yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * n/a

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * There is no addition to the article yet.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * This article does not exist yet.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Everything! The article does not yet exist.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, this article deals with a female scientist, an underrepresented category on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * There is no new content added from the user.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is no article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * N/a
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * N/a

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are no sources yet, both in the article and in the bibliography.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * N/a
 * Are the sources current?
 * N/a
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * N/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * N/a

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * None added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * None added.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * 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 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?
 * A new article, but no sources provided yet.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * No sources provided yet.
 * 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?
 * N/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * There has been no new content added, but there is definetely room for improvement moving forward!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * N/a
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Can add to limited sections, add images, improve introduction, renovate reference list with more recent sources or new information.

Overall evaluation
Although there are no new additions yet AND the article is yet to exist, I see the potential for this article to be improved in various ways. A good background on the scientist can be added with images of her major findings. Each of her major publishings can be discussed, as well as the path she took to achieve them. Her future works can also be discussed if they can be found online. All of this can be accomplished, but ensure it doesn't sound too "resume-like".

~Remycrowley