User:Sbowen99/Annie Montague Alexander/BranMet 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) Sbowen99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sbowen99/sandboxAnnieMontagueAlexander

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the author has increased the lead, making the reason why Annie Alexander is so important to the study of paleontology.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes a sentence that includes a simple explanation of who Alexander was.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and well thought out.

Lead evaluation:
The leads appears to be in good working order. It ends with how she was remembered, which creates a new summary of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to Annie Alexander.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Seems so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No there does not seem to be.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It expands upon the short article of Annie Alexander's and making the readers aware of the importance of the subject.

Content evaluation
The places a lot of importance on the expeditions, which for someone like Annie Alexander, seems to be the most important portions of here life. By expanding upon the sections of the expeditions, unlike the original article, where it becomes lost in the middle, it makes the content seem important to the article, rather than just a bygone portion of Annie Alexander's life. There does not seem to be any significant gaps in article, where one would miss portions of her life. It covers her a way in which she regains her status where it is needed.

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 99% of the content seems to be neutral in nature. Only one claim that I could find that seems to promote a particular view, that I worry could be the article rejected or otherwise changed. Her relationship to Louise Kellogg is described as a Boston Marriage and described as devoted. It would be nice if this particular piece of information could be sourced, or referenced to documentation. Otherwise it just seeming like a floating opinion, even if it comes from a primary source it is better than nothing.

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:
The sources seems like a large collection of different sources that are all current. Some of them written by women, which is all for the better. Testing many of the links they seem to link to non broken links.

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
While the writing is very done, and I did not spot any errors, what stood out to me the most, was the absolutely impressive organization. The organization makes the article 100 times more re-able than the original article. Separating her life and work into distinct sections makes for an easier more enjoyable read.

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 images added to the page only further enhance the work that has been done on the work. The expedition images are only in the expedition section. Clicking through the images they seem to adhere to the copyright strictures. The long line of images are not appealing but that is the typical of the wikipedia format with images. Regardless most of the images add to the topic.

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
Comparing the original article to the new article, it is a vast improvement. The organization in particular and the sectioning out of the expedition really changes the importance of the article. It makes Annie Alexander seem as important as she should be. The only complaint I address above concerning the Boston Marriage. I might also suggest the picture of the UOC museum and the church don't really add anything. If the author could find an older image of the museum, that might be better. However they don't detract for the article. Overall seeing the two articles side by side shows vast improvement.