User:Snitikins/Marcia Caldas de Castro/Pjtian 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? Snitikins
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Snitikins/Marcia Caldas de Castro

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead is succinct and notes the relevance of the chosen female scientist.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I clearly understand the impact the person described has.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections
 * Yes, the lead has a quick breakdown of the four subsections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead describes all the information that is present.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead could be a little more detailed, including sections like any specific publications that she has written that has generated significant impact, any impact outside academics, any other personal life details (family, relationships if not detracting). However, I have not done the research or taken the time to look for these things for this person, so I completely understand if some of the information simply may not be present.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content related to her background on education and her focus on work in tropical diseases as well as the tie into COVID seems very relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, with the discussion of COVID, I do believe this article is up to date. The content included also reflects her current position.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think any content does not belong and more research may be needed to fill in the missing content mentioned above. It would be interested to go more in depth to her work in tropical diseases and COVID.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article is related to the representation of female scientists, especially at elite institutions.

==== Content evaluation: I think more sections should be added in a greater variety, or if the information can't be found, at least more depth in the current areas. Otherwise, everything included is relevant to the person's significance. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims seem to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints are over or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is no persuasive language in the article that would affect the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the sources cited are reliable sources. I would say more types of sources should be
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources are actually all published or updated of this year.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources included are all short biographic pages. It would be interesting/more supportive to get a wider variety of types of sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All 4 links included do work.

==== Sources and references evaluation: Sources are all reliable and current, which provides accurate information. However, more differing types of sources could be added to further show the wider contribution the person has. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is concise, easy to read and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content flow is very easy to follow and makes chronological sense.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images are included.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable.

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?
 * The article is supported by 2-3 reliable sources, but I think a wider variety of source type may help with passing notability requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I would guess that the current list of 4 sources is not exhaustive or all that is available, but I have not yet done the research myself.
 * 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, organization and section headings are well used.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * There are a few article links, and I am sure more will be added to the page as the sections are more developed.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added does allow me better contextualize the person.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Organization and language is very clear and concise.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More depth on topics included will help me understand the significance of her work.