User:Pompquine/Patricia Billings/Anonymous user22144 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? Pompquine
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Patricia Billings

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
It is unclear whether lead has been updated to reflect new content added by peer (When I click on the sandbox draft there is no information, so I am unsure of what Pompquine has added and what already existed from this article). The Lead does include a clear and concise introductory sentence. However, the Lead does not include description of article's major sections. Additionally, the Lead includes information which is not present in the article, stating: "Billings has an entry in the Historical Encyclopedia of American Women Entrepreneurs, 1776 to the Present." This is not found in the article outside of lead. This information could possibly be included in the article in an Honors and Awards section, if you wished to incorporate it into the article outside of the lead section. Overall, the Lead is not overly detailed. The Lead is overall concise, but could probably be expanded upon to be stronger. I believe it would be stronger if it was briefly explained what Geobond is in the lead.

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
The content added is relevant to the topic. The content added is overall up-to-date. All of the content seems to belong. There could be more content added in the form of Honors and Awards, etc. However, the content of the article is overall fitting of the topic. The article deals with the underrepresented topic of women inventors, and this deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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
Though there seems to be debate about the neutrality of the article, I think overall the content added was neutral. From the talk page, it seems some people are upset about the Forbes quote which spoke unbecomingly about Geobond, however all charged statements were quoted directly from sources. There were sources listed and quoted which also spoke favorably about Geobond. I did not come across any claims which appear biased in the article, nor any viewpoints which seem over or underrepresented. I did not find that the unbecoming quotes attempted to persuade me as the reader, but rather that they were there to give a more well rounded view of the reception of Geobond by the media.

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
All content seems to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. The sources used are thorough. Many of the sources used however, are not current. This is to be somewhat expected, as this invention happened over 20 years ago. However, I think the article would be improved if you could draw from more recent sources as well (you already have a few more recent sources, but expanding upon that list would be great for the article). The links I tried to use for sources worked.

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
Overall, content is concise, clear and easy to read. The only sentence that I would recommend maybe revising is:

"However, in 2001, Forbes described the product claims as hype, with no advantages over existing materials, pointed out that the company was moribund, with a skeleton staff, and probably unable to fill orders 'if any', but pointing out that it might have minor uses like 'telephone poles in wildfire districts.'"

It seems to be a little wordy, and I had to read it various times to understand the content of the sentence. Other than this sentence though, everything else was easy to read.

I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the content was well-organized as well. I would recommend maybe combining the Early Life and Education with the Personal Life section, or possibly expanding upon the Personal Life section. It seems awkward to have a section with just once sentence, especially when it could easily be combined with another section which has similar content.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A as there are no images on the article

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
You have definitely improved the overall quality of the article. Your work is clear, concise, neutral, and well-sourced. I would maybe work a little more on the structuring regarding what I said about the sections, as well as the other little things that I pointed out in my review. However, your article looks to be in good shape, it's definitely coming along better than my own! (: