User:SadieAbboud/Louise L. Sloan/Ewu19 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? Gkim70 and SadieAbboud
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SadieAbboud/Louise L. Sloan

Lead
Lead evaluation:

Before their edits, the article's lead consisted of ill-formatted content resembling a list of facts rather than an introduction to the article. The lead has since been rewritten as a concise summary of Louise L. Sloan, only including the most key facts about her life and accomplishments in her field. The introductory sentence clearly describes what Louise L. Sloan is known for, "an American ophthalmologist and vision scientist," while the rest of the Lead briefly touches on the other main sections.

Content evaluation
Being a biographical article on Louise L. Sloan, all of the content pertains to her life and accomplishments. The article details her early life and education, career, research, among other topics. Most of the sections had a fair amount of content, but the Career section could be expanded slightly. Information that could potentially be include the years she worked as a research assistant at Harvard as well as other content related to her career. In the Service in World War II section, there appears to be a typo in the last line that reads: "In 1945, she commenced her work with the Air Force..." Given that the previous statements detail her beginning work with the Air Force in 1942, "commenced" should read "concluded" or something similar. Overall, the content included in the article reflected important parts of her life and research, without unnecessary details into less significant aspects.

Tone and balance evaluation
The authors did a good job in objectively conveying the facts in the article. Steering clear of charged words like "should," they instead used neutral verbs such as "was" and "continued her studies." Within the Service in World War II section when discussing why Dr. Sloan had declined the Air Force's offer, instead of forming a stance on the situation and risking original research, they included a direct quote from Dr. Sloan: "If the Air Force would not allow..." In the Research and Publications sections, the authors briefly described her most famous studies, successfully avoiding bias or persuasion through original research by using direct quotes.

Sources and references evaluation
Scrolling through the article, it appears all of the in-text references are to valid, existing Wikipedia articles (i.e. no red links). The reference section at the bottom has two citations that require editing. The third citation, from sciencedirect.com, displays a missing title error and the fourteenth citation, from the journal Optometry and Vision Science needs to be checked for correct dates. All of the claims made throughout the article appear to be supported by at least one of the 15 sources listed. Checking a few, the sources appear to be working links to current websites/databases. The sources used come from different types of sources, but there seems to be more journal articles than any other category, which makes sense, as the largest section of the article pertains to Dr. Sloan's research and publications which would be found in such journals.

Organization evaluation
The content is framed in a concise and clear fashion, with logical organization based on key categories in Dr. Sloan's life. Making the famous Sloan Letters as a subcategory of the Research and Publications section was a good choice in that people, at a glance, could get an idea of what they were. Though the Career section seems less developed in terms of length compared to the hefty Research one, at a closer look it would not make sense to combine it with another section, thus leaving it as its own paragraph suffices. However, Career could be combined with Personal Life into one longer paragraph, making "Death" its own section. Not to be super critical, but the Personal Life section has a tiny typo in that there should be an extra "to" added between "married" and "Dr. William" in "Dr. Sloan was married Dr. William..."

Images and media evaluation
The article includes two images, one of Dr. Sloan receiving the Tillyer Award and another of the 10 Sloan optotypes that later became known as the Sloan Letters. These enhance the understanding of Dr. Sloan because one shows what Dr. Sloan looked like and her receiving a prestigious award, while the other gave a visual aid for what she became known for. Both images are well-captioned in that they clearly describe what the image is about in a concise manner. The images were taken from Wikimedia Commons, one of which being a direct upload from one of the authors and are spread out in the section that describes them.

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
Given that the original article was merely a stub, the authors have definitely improved the quality of the article drastically. From making a great Lead to a table of Dr. Sloan's Awards and Recognitions, the bibliographical article now gives a clear idea of who Dr. Louise L. Sloan was. The article was well organized into logical sections that encapsulate the main aspects of her life, and the content added to each was pertinent and detailed. The content could be improved in detail checks like grammar and typos as well as fixing some issues with the sources. Certain categories could be combined to others for length, but overall, nice job!