User:Peyton Tooze/Laurel van der Wal/Sbowen99 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? Peyton Tooze (Peyton Tooze)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Peyton Tooze/Laurel van der Wal
 * Laurel van der Wal

Peyton, I couldn't figure out if you were editing in your sandbox or on the live article. I saw that you had activity from this week on both, so I'm peer reviewing both!

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, I think it has so far.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It is very short, but it is clear. I think when the article is done there will be more information to add.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not yet
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say concise but could use some more details to make it more interesting and to really highlight who she was as a person and a scientist.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't see anything that doesn't belong. It looks like she definitely wrote things and received many awards. I would suggest adding a place for these so that the reader can find them quickly.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it's about a woman in science in the 1960s.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, very.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I noticed!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I think this article does a good job of summarizing her life while also allowing her to "speak" using quotes.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it looks good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * As of now, I think so. I assume that there will be more references added, but it looks great so far!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, I think so.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I think it could use more sections to make it more detailed. However, it's nicely organized as is.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one photo but it's of her so that's great! I would recommend adding photos of some of the places you've linked, such as the Hamilton Air Force Base or Santa Monica.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I think the details that Peyton has added have made the article clearer, more interesting, and more true to her life. I think that it will develop over the next few weeks and I'm excited to read it when it's done!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * After comparing it to the original article I would say the best part is the tone and clarity of the writing. It's incredibly neutral and it also reads very easily.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would just suggest pictures, detailed sections if possible, and hopefully more details about her research!

Overall evaluation
Peyton, I think this article is turning out very nicely! You've done a good job of adding details and facts about her life that help the reader understand who she was and why she matters. Great job! Let me know if you have any questions about any of my feedback.

Peer Review Response

Thank You Samantha! I will definitely add more to the article. I appreciate the positive feedback. As far as sources and pictures, I will be adding more. You gave me a great idea with adding pictures of some places she worked ie. Hamilton Air Force Base. I will continue to work on adding in as many details as I can. Thanks again!