User:Sneiblum/Bala Chaudhary/KirstenIvins Peer Review

General info
Sneiblum, Ariannaberrios10, Jgutierrez94
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * NA
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bala Chaudhary

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:


 * The introductory sentence of the lead clearly identifies who the article is about.


 * The article's lead is lacking descriptions about the different sections of the article. Expanding on the lead section of the article will help set up an introduction of what the article is about to its readers.

Content:


 * The body of the article is well written and well detailed about Chaudhary's education, career, and inclusion in STEM.
 * This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps by highlighting Chaudhary's contributions to promoting inclusion in STEM, which relates to historically underrepresented people of color in STEM. The article highlights some of Chaudhary's research on inclusion in STEM, including her research investigating the barriers of people of color in STEM as well as her research on ensuring ant-racist lab environments.

Tone and Balance:


 * The article's tone is neutral and the content is factual. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader into taking a specific position about the article's topic.

Sources and References:


 * The KQED source used in this article may be biased as the source is an interview of Asmeret Asefaw Behre about a paper she co-wrote with Chaudhary. This interview might be too subjective to be considered a neutral source for a Wikipedia article.

Organization


 * The content is well written, concise, and well organized.

Images and Media:


 * If possible, adding images could further enhance who Chadhrary is, the significance of her work, etc.

Overall Impressions:

This article is very well written with effective, well-thought out evidence. The article does well at highlighting the significance of Chadhary's work, especially her research on improving inclusion in STEM. My only main suggestion is to expand on the lead section, review your sources for any potential biases, and add images if possible.

Good job!