User:Remycrowley/Mary Guinan/Mtshiel 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: Mary Guinan

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
The lead gives some present and background information on Mary Guinan, but could give more information regarding other major content sections within the page. Potentially, give a brief mention to her early work and education within the lead. Also mention some accolades and awards she may have won over the years. The lead is very concise and clear, but so much so it's missing some information that can give a reader a full view of what's present in the article.

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
All the content in the "bibliography" is well thought out, but some sentences and information written seems a little out of order in terms of content and context. There are a lot of prepositions that are placed oddly and can confuse the reader as to why it wasn't mentioned as its own standalone point rather than a quick fragment added onto other sentences. Consider removing some of the extra words that seem to fluff the article. Many sentences feel like they could be said with less.

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
The tone is very neutral and doesn't try to persuade or make the reader feel like Mary Giunan is anything other than a scientist, medical doctor, and research doctor. Some of the content is restated in other sections like where and what degree she got her Bachelors in. The sections overlapping are: "Education and training" and "Early career and challenges". Those two sections almost feel identical and could be combined.

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
The sources used in your information are all backed by reliable secondary sources and from reputable places. The secondary sources all come from various outlets and give differing perspectives on Dr. Guinan. All the links are in working order and allow for other editors or readers to easily trace back your information for clarification.

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
The organization and framework of the article is very well thought out. It tells her life in chronological order and from your previous edits you've cleared up a few spelling and grammatical errors within the article. The writing in the older content sections are clear and concise, but your additions, as stated previously, can be wordy with too many prepositions.

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
Currently no images are present on the article. Potentially look into providing a photo of Dr. Mary Guinan with a caption describing her titles and position/job.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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
The article has been improved overall with more early life experiences added to her bibliography. Many gaps have been filled, although, some statements are redundant as they are repeated. The content added does give more weight to her achievements and how she got to the place she is which gives a clearer picture to the readers. The only changes I would make are: removing some prepositions and rewording the statements in another fashion - Potentially even their own sentences; Add a photo of Dr. Mary Guinan with her titles and current job; and ensure no information present is already expressed in previous sections - more so within the early life and education sections.