User:Slightlyseriousspinster/Alice Middleton Boring/Bolingerk 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? Slightlyseriousspinster
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Nice, concise first sentence, but perhaps you could include a little more after that, so that the lead is longer than one sentence. You could maybe include a short summary of what the article is going to talk about, or elaborate just a little bit on what some of her contributions were. Otherwise it's great.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Great job on the content of the article. I don't really have notes on this, as the content is relevant.

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 content is perfect as far as neutrality! You didn't seem to struggle with accidentally adding a bias or anything.

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
I couldn't actually access the sandbox, so I don't actually know whether the links work, but from the google docs it looks good.

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
There were a few grammatical errors and problems with the flow, which I have written below:

-- Paragraph one:

"further spurned her interest" - do you mean spurred?

"Bryn Mawr who was a part of the Seven Sisters (colleges) and a was founded by Quakers"

-- Paragraph three:

" Borings Boring's work would be interrupted"

"She specifically study studied the Bufo bufo"

"She would be forced to move to a compound foreign faculty facility"

-- Paragraph four:

"...College of Physicians and Surgeon which ended in June, 1945." -- perhaps, "...College of Physicians and Surgeon until June, 1945."

"She would then teach zoology as a visiting professor at Mount Holyoke College as a visiting professor of Zoology ."

-- Overall:

You end up switching tenses many times throughout, from simple past ("was", "did", etc) to relative past ("she would stay there", "she would teach", etc). Maybe just pick one and go with that? My suggestion would be to change it all to simple past, and eliminate all the "woulds", which can get repetitive after awhile.

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?

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
I enjoyed learning about Alice Middleton Boring! Great job overall.