User:Shimamikeneko/Evelyn Leland/WithGusto Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Shimamikeneko


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shimamikeneko/Evelyn_Leland?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Evelyn Leland
 * Evelyn Leland

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

My review of the lead will be based on the original article since my peer has kept it the same. The lead includes a brief introductory sentence describing the article's topic. The lead briefly describes the article's only major section, Leland's career. The lead consists of information about Leland's pay which is not included anywhere else in the article. This sentence may be better moved to the career section.

Content:

The content added by my peer is relevant to the topic. All of the new information belongs in the article. The content is about a historically underrepresented population, women in science. However, broader information could be used to address the topic further, with information about the difficulties female scientists faced during that time. If possible, information regarding Leland's personal life and education should be included in the article.

Tone and Balance:

The added content is neutral, as is the information already used in the article. None of the claims in the article is biased towards any position or attempts to persuade the reader.

Sources and References:

A reliable secondary source backs the new content. The information provided accurately reflects what the cited source says, is current, and the link works. With only one new source added, I cannot reflect if better sources are available since I am unsure what other sources they have in their bibliography. However, the new source, alongside the ones in the original article, shows a diverse spectrum of authors.

Organization:

The added content was easy to read, with a few grammatical errors. The “career” section focuses more on Leland’s discovery than her career. Perhaps this section can be relabeled and a new one created for her career. I am unsure what changes will be made to the “article body” section copied from the original article. I would, however, recommend not leaving it as is. Maybe this section can be used in the “career” section.

Images and Media:

My peer did not add images or media. The original article does already include a well-captioned image of Leland. If another image or media was to be added, perhaps it could be of Harvard College Observatory or something related to Leland’s work.

Respond to your review
(I don't know where to reply to you, so I'm pasting the same text here as on the Talk page. I hope you will find it!)

Thank you for the lovely review, WithGusto! You have taken a fair stand when critiquing my article. I really appreciate that. I appreciate your suggestions, especially the leads section. At this stage, the original article is pasted in the sandbox as it is, but I was thinking of adjusting the overall balance when I finished writing everything! I would like to change it based on your opinion.

I have added some content since you wrote the review. Especially the paragraph starting with "Leland has been involved," I am a little unsure as to whether it is related to the topic of my article and whether it stands in a neutral position. I would like to hear your opinion. Let's do our best together!