User:Pachypossum/Dorothy Peteet/Sara.n.york Peer Review

General info
User: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)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead seems to have a decent overview of the subject. Possibly adding in a quick note about the upcoming sections (i.e. education, research, publications) would be helpful for the reader to see the overview of the page at hand. I also see a type in the second sentence where you write "Pete" instead of "Peteet" (probably just an auto corrected mistake).

Content

The content you have fond and added seems to be very relevant. I wonder if you could tie the sections together more by mentioning within the education section that during the fellowship is when her first paper was published which can then be read more about in the publication section.

I wonder what she is doing now, is there any information on where she is working? What lab she is working with if any? Does she teach as a professor, do research fulltime, etc. While there is good information about her education and research being done I wonder if there is information out there about exactly where she is now.

Tone and Balance

I genuinely feel that the tone of this writing is very professional and aligns very well with wikipedias guidelines. Nothing is sticking out to me to have an unprofessional or bias tone I think that this is written very well with the information that you have.

Sources and References

The reference list feels a bit small but as someone also doing a biography of a living person I understand how much of a struggle it is to find relevant information. I would suggest looking for some more secondary sources possibly discussing the research she has done.

Organization

As I mentioned earlier, adding more about what she is not currently doing, as in possibly an additional section about "Career" could be beneficial. Otherwise, I do like the education, research, and publication sections. I like that you discuss the earliest and most recent paper. Possibly throwing in some more snippets, maybe about her most well known research papers in that section would be beneficial as well to add more information.

New Article Notes

'''As a new article, it does reach the "notability requirements" having more than 2-3 sources to contribute. That being said, it could still use some more to provide more information and evidence.'''

I would look into the addition of an info-box that gives the persons name and some other quick information right at the beginning of the article. I have seen this present with most biographies of living persons. My understanding is that this is an addition labeled "infobox scientist" that can be inserted into the formatting of your page.

Also, the various links to other pages that are within the article are great. I wonder if there is any other article that her name could be attached to that would give people the opportunity to explore her newly made page.

Overall Impressions

I know it is difficult to find information on people, but some additional sources and more information would be helpful as an improvement. But, being that this is a fresh page, I see the structure and information provided through the well thought out sections to be a good start.