User:Sarahstevs/Ethel Browne Harvey/Idevji 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? Sarahstevs
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ethel Browne Harvey

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Looking at the sandbox draft and the edit history, I don't think my peer added anything to the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The major sections include biography, bibliography and awards however the lead doesn't mention anything about awards.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, Everything is mentioned later on somewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is concise, almost too concise. I think more information needs to be added to it.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is at a good starting point but needs to be improved to have more content and information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Given that the embryologist covered in this article died in 1965, I think it is hard for the content to be up-to-date however I do think there is room here for the editors to include how her discoveries are impacting science today. Also, the second reference listed has a newer edition available!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there is content missing about the impact of her work today. Also, doing a quick google search and referring to the references, her work actually appeared in Time, Life, and Newsweek which I think could be worth highlighting in the article itself rather than in just the references. Also, a man named Howard M. Lenhoff is mentioned in the article which I don't think belongs unless the editors can highlight the importance of his viewpoint.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes - women in science.

Content evaluation
I think the content is good although I think there is an opportunity to make it better by including more details, especially to make it relevant to today's time!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that the viewpoints surrounding the impact of her work are underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No!

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the tone and balance of this paper are decent as the article is pretty neutral and unbiased. However, I think there are viewpoints in the article that are underrepresented, like the impact of her work.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, like New York Times!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, since this embryologist is from the 1900s, I think the editors used all the available literature on this topic.
 * Are the sources current? As current as they can be!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, I think a variety of authors were included in the secondary sources although it is a little difficult to tell.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are many links that were attempted to be added to the article that do not exist so many of them are red. In the references specifically, the third reference does not work and the second reference needs to be updated to a newer version.

Sources and references evaluation
Needs work! The links and references need to be double checked!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Kind of, there are a few spelling errors that I will mention in the next bullet point that make it a little harder to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes:
 * After graduating with her B.A. in 1906, and then studied zoology at Columbia University, earning an MA in 1907...
 * At Columbia(needs comma) she worked with...
 * ...the male germ cells an aquatic insect, leading her to further... I think you're missing a word or two in this sentence. Doesn't make sense.
 * ...because she did the experiment first; she understood its significance; and she had, in fact, sent her paper... I think the semicolons need to be commas
 * In 1915, she married fellow scientist, E. Newton Harvey, a physiologist known for work on bioluminescence. Probably need a pronoun in between 'for' and 'work'
 * She taught at a variety of institutions, including the Bennett School for Girls in Millbrook, New York, the Dana Hall School in Wellesley, Massachusetts; Washington Square College at NYU. I think you need a comma instead of a semicolon after 'Massachusetts' and you also need 'and at the...'
 * She conducted scientific research in a variety of positions including Princeton University and Cornell Medical College. I don't think positions is the right word here.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the content needs to be more organized because a lot information is covered under biography when it can probably be broken down into 'personal life' and 'research' or headers as such.

Organization evaluation
I think this is one of the weakest sections of the articles. The organization and spelling/grammar needs more attention.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images on this article. My peer did not add any either.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the content added helped improve the article by giving a more clear picture of Ethel's research achievements.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is detailed and helps the reader understand what her discoveries meant.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content that was added has the potential to dive into the impact that Ethel's findings had on the field of science. Also, many things were added in bibliography but the significance of them was not really discussed.

Overall evaluation
I think this article has a lot of room for improvement. The editors need to look over the spelling/grammar, links and organization of the article in more detail. I think the content that was added is good but it also has a lot of potential to be more detailed and informative as more can be added to it.