User:Plantnoob/Penelope Mountjoy/Serkatet Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * User:Plantnoob


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Plantnoob/Penelope Mountjoy


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Penelope Mountjoy

Evaluate the drafted change
I had trouble distinguishing between what was added by the editor in question and what was added by other editors, so I apologize in advance if some of these comments are not applicable.

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? A bit yes, however I feel as though the content of Mountjoy's books are discussed in too much detail for the lack of information on the page. I think the information in the lead starting with, "Her second book..." and the sentences that follow should be moved to a different section or removed entirely.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Kind of, see above comment.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Again, see above comment.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The contents of her books and the details of her research are not discussed in the body of the article so their brief inclusion into the lead feels out of place. Consider expanding in the article and/or omitting from the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? See above comments.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? From what I can tell, given my lack of knowledge on the topic, yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Going back to what I wrote a couple questions up, I feel like the article would be improved with the inclusion of some of the details of Mountjoy's work/research into the main part of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? It appears neutral in my opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not to my knowledge.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think there are any viewpoints represented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not to my knowledge.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In the body of the article yes, but the information in the lead lacks sources. Please add sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes I believe so, for the content that has sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so.
 * Are the sources current? For the most part.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Uncertain how to answer this in relation to this article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Considering the sources and what information is drawn from them, I believe they're perfectly fine, not sure if there would be better sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * 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? None that were readily apparent to me, but I'm susceptible to error.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part, but I feel like there's room to add another section for a bit more details on the specifics of her research/work. Also, I'm confused as to why there are two separate sections for publications and book? Can they not be combined? If they're separate for a reason I curious to know why.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I would say that the article is definitely more complete, but still needs some work.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like that the lead was expanded, and that a separate section for Education was included.
 * How can the content added be improved? Definitely by including sources to the lead! Also, if possible, I think some info about her work itself would be beneficial to the article.