User:Siewint/Cordelia Stanwood/Brittenallen Peer Review

Peer review
I looked for the information for a bit and while I'm not seeing changes done in the personal sandbox, I did note there have been a good amount of changes done on the wikipedia page itself. As such I'm going to jump into this review answering questions related to the article itself.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Siewint
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Cordelia Stanwood

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * It could use a bit more information here to lead in.
 * 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 short and direct and gives a general idea of who Stanwood is.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * You might add a bit more on the specifics of her work!

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * There are several articles utilized in this page.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * One reference, I think is a bit incorrect, pertaining to a couple of dates that didn't pan out with my research. #2 from maineanencyclopedia.com might need to be checked out further!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The section of "Beginnings in ornithology is a bit wordy and I might recommend editing it around a bit!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The breakdown of each section is well done. It's possible you might split up the section about her death and the Birdsacre Sanctuary, but they are interlinked so I can understand why one would put them together. Maybe you can make another section called "Legacy" or something!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are a few images, I'm not sure what imagery you can put in as Stanwood's notes are private and not published.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Eh, as much as possible in this situation.

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?
 * Overall, the article is still quite short but information could be at a minimum which could make adding to it that much more difficult.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Overall, the information added is information that was much needed. There was much left out about Stanwoods life and it's nice that you were able to add more on that.
 * How can the content added be improved.
 * I had actually messed up early on and ended up doing a lot of research on Cordelia! It turns out that some of the edited dates and age are a bit off but I could see how someone could make those mistakes so you might look at editing those! You might look at adding a bit more information and possibly even pictures about some of the specific work she did as the article seems to be lacking in that area.