User:Obermirek/Lois Clark/Maloneel 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? Obermirek
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Obermirek/sandbox

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 introductory sentence is good. I think you could add more here about her research, naming the species she studied and where (to link to your section headers). Also maybe what she tried to accomplish with her teaching or why she taught if you know or what her major contribution to science was. I don't think that you need to hyperlink professor in this. You mention she taught at the university of Idaho but do not mention it in the below sections.

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
You mentioned that she wrote 35 articles, is there any reviews or mention of those? Maybe list some of the bigger/ most notable ones, why is this important, what did she publish. Here you could add what that view point was (if you know) "Clark's work on the classification of Frullania was highly revered and respected amongst the scientific community." You could add more information to give context. For example talking about her mentors or influences she had, specifically Robert M. Hardy and T.C. Frye add info about him and what he did to flesh out Attu Island section. Can you expand on this topic? "Clark and Frye go on to describe the qualities that are desired for a good collector of Heptaicae in order to demonstrate the point that these samples were not collected carefully enough."

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
Good, very analytical. Again could go into what/why she was revered in the scientific community.

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 needs to be more sources sited in the article itself. (In mine every sentence is sited, I don't know if this is correct but I wanted to be thorough.) Is there any other sources you can pick from? (If you look into her mentors maybe this will add more sources.) The links worked and look good.

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 you can combine early life and education into one header.

In Education section: "Clark remained at Yale for a year (1917-1918) and after became a botany student and assistant to the University of Minnesota." This sentence is somewhat confusing, for a year and the time is redundant I suggest choosing one or the other. Is she an assistant to the university? or to a teacher/specific school department there?

Research section: Combine these sentences the first is kind of redundant "Her first publication was co-authored with T.C. Frye in 1928, The Liverworts of the Northwest, which detailed and labeled various liverworts in the Pacific Northwest in their books that were previously unknown about beforehand. Her research with Frye consisted of work identifying plants in the herbarium at the University of Washington, which consumed most of her life from 1933 to 1962." Change capitalization of her: "She also wrote Her most notable contribution was a five part series on The Hepaticae of North America, which she helped complete alongside Frye between 1937 and 1947."

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?

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
I think that with one or two of other sources this will meet the notability requirements. It follows a good flow and is patterned like other articles. You could link more things like Attu Island, Ruth Dowell Svihla (and other people), and maybe some of her works (I don't know if they will be on wikipedia but maybe have links to where people can read it)?

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
I think this article give a great overview of Lois's contributions to the scientific community. I think some more information could be added to the teaching section about what she taught or why/what her goal with education was.