User:Sage cat/Catherine Potvin/Dylan Thomas Clark 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

 * Sage cat
 * User:Sage cat/Catherine Potvin

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 article looks to be built from scratch, so the lead does reflect new content. The lead is clear and concise, but needs more information on Dr. Potvin's activism. It does not include the major sections. The lead contains only information present in the article. The lead is concise. Though, as mentioned, it could include more information.

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
The content is relevant. The most recent sources are from 2020, so they appear up-to-date. There is little content on her biography/personal life, but there doesn't seem to be anything that doesn't belong. It does address the equity gap.

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 content is neutral. There aren't any obviously biased claims or over/underrepresented viewpoints. There doesn't appear to be anything intended to persuade.

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
Mostly yes, but "policy work" could use expansion/additional sourcing. They do seem to reflect most of the available literature about Dr. Potvin, but there isn't much from Dr. Potvin directly. The sources are mostly from the mid to late 2010's, though there are a few from 2020 specifically. Several of the sources didn't have a credited author, so I couldn't tell if it was from a diverse spectrum. The authors credited were mostly French-Quebecois. Every link worked.

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
It is written well overall. The grammar and word choice could use some cleaning up, most notably in the "Early life and education" and "policy work" sections. The organization works.

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
There are no images.

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
It meets the notability requirements. There are many sources and they are from a number of different places. Most of the available literature is touched on in one way or another. It needs a picture of Dr. Potvin and an infobox. The article does not have any embedded links to other articles. This would definitely help it.

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 is more complete from the added content. The central strength is that the new content offers a clear and concise introduction to Dr. Potvin's career and achievements. It needs some grammatical/technical cleanup, an infobox, expansion on her biography and policy work, and a longer lead. It is a great start overall.