User:Remycrowley/Mary Guinan/Eguest-clemson 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? Remycrowley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Remycrowley/Mary Guinan

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes but more could be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. This information needs to be reflected in the actual article. It talks about a book and a movie that could probably have their own sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead still needs more editing. There are parts that are unclear. There are some grammatical errors as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * There is not much content after 2010. More recent information could be helpful.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * These is nothing related to the movie or book that was mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes; a women in science.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is good. It could still be improved for clarity. In addition, more recent information could be good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources look good and reliable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This could be improved. Some of the writing is unclear and difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes. There are some grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are a lot of sections and they are not in a logical order. There is also still the bulleted timeline.

Organization evaluation
This is the part of the paper that needs the most work.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
Maybe add some images if there are any that follow wikipedia's polices.

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?
 * There is still more work that needs to be done. The article hasn't changed a lot yet. There is more editing that needs to be done. It could also use some more sources and more recent information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The lead is significantly improved.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Clarity and grammatical fixes. It could also be more organized.

Overall evaluation
The article needs more information about her recent life. More needs to be said about the movie and book mentioned as well. It also needs to be edited for clarity and the grammatical mistakes need to be fixed. Finally, it could be organized more efficiently. If possible, adding a picture would be nice.