User:Sara.n.york/Elizabeth Hadly/Diderotsevenbillion Peer Review

General info
Sara.n.york
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sara.n.york/Elizabeth Hadly
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Elizabeth Hadly

Lead
I agree with the assessment that the lead is largely good as it stands. But I do think it could be expanded a little - someone reading only the lead would not be aware that this person's research has anything 'paleo' about it. It might also be worth adding a sentence indicating why she is notable.

Content
The content is all relevant to the topic, and the additions are all relevant and appropriate information. I think that there is some missing information in the 'career' and 'research' sections. It could be good to include a general description of the topics of her thesis and dissertation. It would be good to include the year her PhD was awarded, and possibly to mention who her doctoral advisor was. There is also a big jump in time - what was she doing between 1982 and 2016? That information is likely important to understanding her career. It might be relevant to highlight some of her most impactful work from this period.

In the research section, noting that she is married to Anthony Barnosky is important - good catch! It might be nice to highlight some of her work that is not tied to just this one collaborator. It would also be appropriate to describe in more detail some of her specific research questions / themes / methods.

In the awards/positions section, it seems like some titles and awards are missing. I would take a look at her homepage and CV.

Tone and Balance
The tone and balance are largely strong. This sentence - Starting as pre-med student, she shifted her passion for humans to those within the fossil records - strikes me as not quite the wikipedia tone. The creative phrasing comes at the expense of clearly communicating what happened.

Sources and References
The sourcing for this article is fairly thin. I understand that this type of subject may not always have a ton of sources available. You might try poking around her website - it looks as though she's been in at least one documentary that hasn't been referenced in this article yet. You could also try looking for secondary sources covering her most impactful research.

Organization
The overall organization of the piece make sense, and it is concise. There are a few things I would consider altering.

The first sentence of the "career" section does not have to do with Hadly's career. It might be appropriate to move to a 'personal life' section or something similar.

In this sentence - "Volunteering in Yellowstone National Park in 1982 lead to a full time position and her pursuit of a masters degree." - 'lead' should be 'led.' This sentence is also slightly confusing given the preceding sentence - it makes it seem as though this happened after her masters. It might also be worth clarifying what her volunteer role was and what role she was hired into.

The sentence "Her PhD research in integrative biology was awarded by the University of California, Berkeley" should just read 'She was awarded a PhD in integrative biology by the University of California, Berkeley," as she was awarded the degree, not the research.

In this sentence - "Hadley also has interest in research within local scale impacts of climate change" - her name is misspelled. In this section, I think it is more appropriate to describe the research she has done / is doing rather than to say what she's interested in, so this sentence should maybe be changed or removed.

In general, when writing about her inner state (e.g. "Hadly found consistency"; "she shifted her passion"; "Hadley also has interest") I think it would be good to frame it in terms of something she has said, rather than as an objective fact.

Images and Media
N/A

Overall impressions
I think that this article is definitely better than it was when you came to it, and that there's plenty of room for it to continue to grow and improve. I think that more clearly characterizing Hadly's career and what her research actually consists of is far and away the number one priority for future work on this article - as it reads now, her research career is summarized totally by her collaborations with her husband, which, while certainly important and worthy of inclusion, are far from a complete picture of her substantial and varied scholarly output.