User:RooftopWriter/Aimee Cox/Klw217 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) RooftopWriter, Jo.joh.371, MinaE123


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RooftopWriter/Aimee_Cox?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead of the article is very well made and informative. It gives a detailed account of Cox's education, her occupation and research interests, and the job positions she has held. It also gives a detailed overview of the different institutions that she has taught at and the different elements, such as dance and poetry that she incorporates into her research. I think the lead includes details about the article's major sections, but it a little overly detailed. Some of the details in the lead could be saved for later in the article.

The content in the main section of the article is relevant to the topic and appears to be up to date. However, I feel like some of the information from the lead should be incorporated into the main part of the article. For instance, the detailed account of Cox's education that is in the lead should be under the "education" drop down. Also, the details about the institutions she has taught at should be under the "career" drop down. The information is very neutral and seems to lack any obvious bias. The information is presented in a very professional manner, lacking any obvious siding with any opinions.

There are citations included after almost every sentence. The links that I checked all worked and led me either to primary sources to refer to or to websites/articles where information is included. i have noticed any grammatical or spelling errors, and the information is presented in a manner that is easy to read. I think that for a new article this one follows the general pattern that most follow.

I think the best way to improve the article would be to take a lot of the information from the lead section and put it into the subsections later in the article. For example, put the education details and the career positions she has held under the "education" and "career" sections, respectively. I also think that, if the information is out there, information about Cox's life, like where she is from and when she was born, should be added. I think a nice way to show where she is from and where she was educated would be to organize them in a chart off to the side.