User:Rojinkharrazi/Heather Judkins/Jennagyee Peer Review

Good job overall! I enjoyed reading your article and I hope you found my comments at least slightly helpful! Let me know if you have any questions or if I can better explain anything I said below! :)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Rojinkharrazi's article on Heather Judkins


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rojinkharrazi/Heather Judkins


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * I don't believe it is any different than the link above, but here it is again: User:Rojinkharrazi/Heather Judkins

Lead:

 * The lead has been updated to include introductory information to summarize the key points of this article and is concise while still including lots of information within the short space. The lead is concise, not overly detailed, and includes a brief description of most of the article's major sections without including information that is not present in the article. The only piece I felt was really missing in the lead was information about education, but I know that is included in the information section so it's probably okay!

Content:

 * The content is relevant to the topic and seems pretty up to date. There are some parts of the content that do seem to be somewhat missing, but I feel that by having their sections you have addressed your intention to fill those content gaps so I don't see any large issue there. I don't think that there is any content that doesn't belong though, so good job there!
 * This article definitely deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations, as it highlights women in science.

Tone and Balance:

 * The content was all pretty neutral without any biased view points and it did not over or underrepresent any specific viewpoints, instead I thought you did a really good job at tying in factual information from the sources without putting opinion into it. The content was not attempting to persuade the reader in any certain way or toward any position.

Sources and References:

 * The references section was an area of slight confusion for me, as there were multiple lists of different references. However, you did a good job of including notes that allowed me to distinguish between the different reference sections in order to sort through which were connected to what. I assume this is only the way it is because your page is still a work in progress so no worries about that! I totally get it :)
 * It did seem like you used your sources well to back up information throughout your article and that it was relevant and accurate based on the source itself. I appreciated the cited publications because even just reading through the title was interesting and helpful at getting a better sense of the type of work that Dr. Judkins does!
 * The sources seemed relatively recent, and definitely recent enough when taking into consideration that there won't be the same fast turnover of articles that there are for people who are more conventionally famous to the general public.

Organization:

 * I thought the content was well written and was definitely clear, concise, and easy to read! It didn't seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors, the only comment I would make is pretty small scale.
 * Very small comment: you may want to include the periods in Ph.D. because you did in the information box at the top but not in the education section!
 * The content seemed well organized, with section headers that make sense and help to guide the reader through the article. They also definitely reflect different important themes of Dr. Judkin's life.

Images and Media:

 * I really liked your use of images throughout your wikipedia page. I loved the picture you used of Dr. Judkins in the initial information box, as it seemed to highlight the type of person she is and showed her "in her element" as far as I could tell from reading the article! I felt it was a very purposeful choice and it worked well.
 * I also enjoyed the additional photos you had from her team collecting samples, I felt it added a lot to the section on her research and allowed me to get a better sense for her work in general.

New Article Criteria:

 * This article did a very good job about linking to other articles to make it more discoverable and also to help add resources to understand things mentioned in the article that most people may not have a lot of knowledge about prior to reading the wikipedia pages.
 * The only suggestion I would have within the linking other articles is that you might want to consider linking the schools for Dr. Judkins' alma mater to their wikipedia page! You can do this with the same "[[" trick that you can use within the normal document!
 * It also meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, as it includes reliable sources about the subject and highlights an individual who seems to have a large impact on those around them. There are many sources cited which enhance the article's reliability.
 * The format of the article seemed to match other similar articles, and included similar section headings and infoboxes to other articles of a similar type. All formatting choices seemed to agree with other wikipedia pages and made sense for this specific article.

Overall impressions
Overall, I really enjoyed your use of images/media to further your article. I thought it greatly enhanced my engagement with your article and that it will do a lot to interest people when the article is published! I think overall your article was of good quality but of course needed some sections to be finished, as two of the sections didn't have any information yet (but I know how busy quarters can be so I totally get it!). I think you chose a great person to highlight as your uncommon leader, and I can't wait to revisit your page in the future and be able to learn more about her!