User:Slightlyseriousspinster/Alice Middleton Boring/Cafe.doppio 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)Slightlyseriousspinster
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Slightlyseriousspinster/sandbox and Alice Middleton Boring WP page

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is very scant; just one introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? If the topic is a biographical sketch, yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Very much so
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Probably not discoverable
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it attempts to give credit to an accomplished scientist

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Perfectly
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not applicable
 * 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? This would require excessive research on my part
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Likely not possible (spectrum) Yes (marginalized)
 * 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? All of these things
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The verb tense throughout is off; eliminate the repetitive would
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is appropriately chronological

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? An image of the scientist would add to the page.
 * 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? I am not willing to do the research required to answer this
 * 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? Very much so
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Many gaps filled in; appropriate addenda regarding her accomplishments and historical perspective
 * How can the content added be improved? Most of the references and citations are from one source (a common occurrence in our pursuits)

Overall evaluation
Need to tweak the lead a little bit. Good job with all the new content. There are some phrases e.g. "compound foreign faculty" that I don't understand.