User:Pachypossum/Dorothy Peteet/Diderotsevenbillion Peer Review

General info
Pachypossum
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pachypossum/Dorothy Peteet
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Does not exist
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Does not exist
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Does not exist

Lead
The lead is strong overall - it's concise and gets the main points across. I would consider adding a sentence or two that points out why she is notable and/or her major area of research or most significant research contribution. I also think paleoenvironments should be one word. The lead does a good job of letting me know who we're talking about, but it's not immediately clear why she has a wikipedia article, if that makes sense.

Content
The content is strong - overall it's concise with good coverage, and does address an equity gap. My feedback is mostly just about small details.

"Apart" should be two words.

"Multiple areas of paleoecological studies" is a bit clunky and maybe unnecessary since you describe the areas later in the section. Maybe just say that her research focuses on the Late Pleistocene and Holocene in that sentence?

Framing her research in terms of her "interests" is maybe not the clearest - though I know the sources that you link to do frame it that way, it's probably best to frame the section about her research in terms of the research she's done, not what her interests are. I could be wrong about this, but I feel like I usually only see language like that on wikipedia if it's part of a narrative summary of someone's research trajectory.

"Published or collaborated on" is nonstandard phrasing - I think you can just say "published" or "Is an author or coauthor of"

Summarizing her publication output with her first and last paper is an approach that you might consider rethinking - first and last papers are often not an author's most impactful or representative work. If you wanted to highlight a specific paper, you could consider highlighting her most-cited work, or the most-cited work on which she is the first author. You could also fold publications into the research section, or consider other ways of summarizing research output.

Tone and Balance
Tone is appropriate for wikipedia.

Sources and References
Sources could use some work, though I understand that it can be hard to find them for this type of article. Four of the six sources are bios posted by institutions she's affiliated with, and two are primary sources. Has she been interviewed anywhere? Has any of her most impactful work been covered in other media? Those kinds of sources could potentially improve the article.

Organization
One of the strong points of this article. Information is clear, concise, and broken up logically. A few sentence-level typos or clarity errors (which I noted in more detail in the 'content' section) but overall very strong.

Images / Media
N/A. Could be nice to include a photo, but not necessary.

New Article
I would say that this article is borderline in terms of notability criteria. The sources currently do not meet the criteria described above - none of them are independent of the subject. It's not totally clear whether or not she meets the notability criteria here, although her citation metrics help with criterion one, and her director role may meet criterion 6.

Overall impressions
This is a good starting point for an article on a subject which may not have much more available information. It is logically structured, conveys the most important information, is neutral in tone, and is concise. The description of her research and publications could use some work to be clearer and more accurately capture her most important contributions - this may also support the subject's notability, which is currently unclear. The sourcing as it stands is inadequate. Overall, solid work! Hope that this feedback is helpful.