User:SadieAbboud/Louise L. Sloan/Angela432 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? (provide username)
 * SadieAbboud and Gkim70
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:SadieAbboud/Louise L. Sloan

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 has been expanded to include more general information about Sloan's education, achievements, and career. The introductory sentence includes the roles that Sloan was known for and includes her birth and death dates, which concisely describes the topic of the article. The lead briefly describes sections such as education, career,research, and awards. Though it doesn't mention her service in WWII, this makes sense since that section is very minor compared to other sections. The lead contains information that is restated and expanded upon later in the article. The lead is concise and gives a good overview of who Louise L. Sloan is.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant, but could be balanced more based on importance. All the content added is up-to-date. Depending on whether sources are available, there could be more details added about Sloan's childhood such as her family environment, parents' jobs, etc. Details could also be added to the personal life section so that it is more than a single sentence, including possible philanthropy/activism activities or side projects.

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 the editor often made claims like "Dr. Sloan contributed greatly to the scientific community", these were backed up by specific facts. Thus, they are perceived as more objective statements rather than opinions. There aren't any claims that are heavily biased. There may be some imbalance in terms of information presented. For example sections such as "Service in World War II" have more detail than more important sections like "Career". The amount of information should reflect the relevance and broadness of that particular section. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader on one position or another.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Many of the sources come from reputable journals (like the Journal of the American Academy of Optometry, American Journal of Ophthalmology, etc). The sources are thorough and diverse, covering different aspects of Sloan's life and research. Some of the sources are older (early 1900s, around the time Sloan was alive) while others are more recent, which provide a variety of perspectives. The links do work, and take me to mostly online books and scientific journals.

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 content added is well-written, making the article concise and easy-to-follow. There were very few grammatical or spelling errors. A few sentences including: "One of the most prominent articles in her early years of research was a study, in 1936, on an idiopathic macular disease, which has been identified as Central serous retinopathy." could be considered run-on and would be better broken down to improve flow. In terms of organization, the career section could be combined with the section on service during World War II, since I don't think the latter is important enough to warrant its own section. At the very least, the service section could be a sub-section of "career". The "research and publications" introduction could also be broken down further into subsections, with topics such as her work in studying color-blindness having their own section (similar to how "Sloan letters" is separate). The death section can be combined with the "personal life" section since both are very short.

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
The main image of Louise Sloan receiving a Tillyer Award could be moved to the awards section of the article to better reflect the content, and a headshot or professional profile picture of Sloan could be placed at the top of the article instead. For the first image, the caption describes enough context for the reader to understand what is happening in the photo. For the second image, the caption is more brief but labels the image in a concise manner. The one added image is properly cited and adheres to Wikipedia copyright regulations. A couple more images could be added to make the article more visually appealing.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The original article was only a stub, so there has been a lot more information added that gives a complete overview of who Louise Sloan is. The strengths are that the article uses reliable sources and includes only the most relevant information. It is clear, concise, and easy to read. Some of the smaller sections can be combined and reorganize (as indicated above) to further improve readability and focus more on the most important points.