User:Slaro2025/Saurian Expedition of 1905/Livvv2024 Peer Review

General info
@Slaro2025
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Slaro2025/Saurian Expedition of 1905
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):User:Slaro2025/Saurian Expedition of 1905

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * 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?
 * No, this part is incomplete.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * What is there is concise. A brief description of the major sections of the article could be added (mention key contributors, the expedition, findings, etc.).

Content

 * 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?
 * On a different expedition, Anne Alexander discovered 3 ichthyosaur fossils that belonged to a previously unknown species. As this isn't crucial knowledge that affects the information in the article, it may not be important to add, but at the author's discretion it could be useful backstory information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article's overall topic does not, but it does provide information about some women scientists, who have historically been underrepresented and overlooked in their fields. I think the article does this in a very tasteful and sensitive way.

Tone and Balance

 * 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?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * More citations should be added to the text.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There may be other sources, but they might not be necessarily better. I found some books and papers that are not accessible online, so it is difficult to measure their authority. I've added a few citations to this page that the author might be able to add to their page.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Under "Key contributors," there is this sentence - "William Boynton, another Berkeley student at the time, joined the Nevada crew during their expedition, graduating the following year." I would re-write this to say something along the lines of "William Boynton, another Berkeley student, joined the Nevada crew during the expedition, and went on to graduate the following year." You could even just get rid of the part about him graduating the following year, as I feel like it is not crucial to the information about the expedition, but it is up to you!
 * This part, under "Key contributors," could use a re-write simply for readability. "Unlike Edna, William, and Malcolm, James P. Smith was not a student of Berkeley during the time of the expedition. Rather, he graduated from the University of Göttigen with his Ph.D. and was teaching Paleontology at Stanford University. However, he did join the crew to Nevada during the expedition." I think the "however" at the beginning of the last sentence makes this chunk of text a little wonky to read, so you could change it to say something like "He joined the crew to Nevada..."
 * 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?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * Yes.

For New Articles Only

 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources seems appropriate for the amount of information that is included in the article. However, I found some sources that seemed like they would be appropriate to add, which are included in the references list at the bottom of this page.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * A good overall summary of the expedition. I think the level of detail is appropriate for a Wikipedia page. I can tell that you put a lot of work into researching this topic, and I think the photos you picked are a nice touch and add to the overall understanding of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding more references in the body of the article. For example, in "The Expedition" section, there is this - "They hoped to bring any specimens found back to Berkeley, where they could be analyzed further and later be put on display by the university's museum. Throughout the duration of the trip, they found themselves setting up basecamps in abandoned mining shacks. They used tools such as shovels, picks, and dynamite to uncover these fossils and release them from the bedrock. Horses were utilized to carry these specimens along the trip." This seems like it could use a reference.