User:SonyaBIOL497/Lorena Alarcon-Casas Wright/Isobel.Isobel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SonyaBIOL497

This article is entirely new to Wikipedia and does not currently exist in the Wikipedia "mainspace".
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SonyaBIOL497/Lorena_Alarcon-Casas_Wright?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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 lead section does include an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the article's topic. In order to improve the first sentence, I would recommend bolding the topic of the WIkipedia article (e.g. Lorena Alarcon-Casas Wright), per Wikipedia standards. The topic only needs to be in bold in the very first sentence. I also noticed that the article name itself includes a hyphen between Alarcon and Casas, but that the name in the introductory sentence lacks this hyphen. Adding a hyphen here would help keep the formatting consistent.

The Lead does include a brief description of most of the article's major sections. Adding a small sentence about Wright's early life and education might make the lead section a little more representative of the article as a whole. There is no information present in the Lead section that is not also present somewhere else in the article, which is good. Overall, the lead contains enough details to provide a good overview of the topic while still remaining concise.

Content

The content that was added to the article was relevant to the topic and all information was up-to-date. For the Selected Publications portion of the content, there were a ton (so many!) Selected Publications listed. I appreciated how thorough this section was, but I might suggest narrowing it down a bit, since most articles usually seem to include around 3-8 selected publications. It might be beneficial to narrow this section to more properly indicate Wright's most influential research contributions, instead of including a lengthy list of many different contributions. I recommend looking for research articles that received a lot of media attention or articles that were frequently cited and referenced by other authors.

This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, since the topic of the article is Lorena Alarcon-Casas Wright, who is a member of multiple historically underrepresented groups, including women in STEM, and LatinX individuals in STEM.

Tone and Balance

The content added to the article did have a neutral tone overall, and there were no claims that appeared heavily biased towards a particular position. This article is not very political or controversial in nature, so I wouldn't say that there were any "overrepresented" or "underrepresented" viewpoints. This article did not attempt to persuade the reader. Overall, the article was very neutral and professional in tone. Great work!

Sources and References

All the content that was added does appear to be linked to a reliable secondary source of information. Sources 4 and 7 were each cited many times throughout the article, so I would say that the article disproportionately relied on those two sources. That being said, there were numerous other sources cited throughout the article as well. The content of the article accurately reflected the sources that were used. The sources that are present are current and they appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors, although some sources lack author identification entirely, due to the nature of the source. The References list does include sources written by historically marginalized individuals where possible, which is a great addition. I appreciated the diversity of authors represented and the diversity of source types that were used (e.g., news articles, health websites, professional journals, college websites, etc.).

The sources that were used did provide a thorough overview of the topic, but if possible, I believe that the article would benefit with the addition of a few more secondary sources. Here's one more potential source that I thought might be helpful, that I don't already see included: https://www.discoverslu.com/story/bilingual-care/ Even if new sources don't add a ton of new information, they might provide a few more details or help to verify information that is already present.

When I clicked on the links from the References section, they all worked correctly!

Organization

The content of the article is well-written, professional, and easy to read/understand. I did not find many spelling or grammatical errors, but here are a few minor changes that I'd recommend making, based on my read-through of the article:


 * Add links into the infobox! Normally topics are only Wikipedia-linked once in each article, the first time the topic appears; however, I'm pretty sure that all the topics in the infobox should be linked as well, even if you link them in the main body of the article. For example, when the infobox says "Born: Veracruz, Mexico", you should link to the Veracruz, Mexico Wikipedia page in the infobox itself.
 * As noted above, bold and hyphenate "Lorena Alarcon Casas Wright" in the first sentence of the Lead section, so that the first sentence looks like this: "Lorena Alarcon-Casas Wright (MD, FACE) is a physician-endocrinologist..."
 * Remove the space between "physician-endocrinologist" and the [2] footnote, so that the footnote is right up against the text.
 * In the sentence "This aims to bridge the language barrier between...", I'd remove the word "this", and start the sentence with a more specific term. Something simple, but slightly more detailed, like "The clinic aims to bridge the language barrier between..."
 * Similarly, in the sentence "This includes hiring social workers who can help connect patients to...", I would remove the word "this", and make the sentence more specific instead. Something like "Planned improvements include hiring social workers who can help connect patients to...".
 * "Hence the need for more LatinX Spanish-speaking doctors, Wright notes." This sentence felt a little awkwardly structured. I might consider switching the format of this sentence so that it's more like "These inequities have led Wright to recognize the need for more LatinX Spanish-speaking doctors."
 * In the sentence "Wright has also shared her expertise in Diabetes care on media outlets", I might include a few of the outlets or highlight some of the information that she has shared. The sentence could be modified at the end to add these details (i.e., "Wright has also shared her expertise in Diabetes care on various media outlets, including [outlet 1], [outlet 2], etc.").

The major sections of the article are organized in a clear, logical manner. Headings and subheadings are used effectively. It might make sense to move the Personal Life section somewhere else, since it's currently just tagged on to the end of the article after the Selected Publications. The Personal Life section might fit better after the Early Life and Education section or following the Advocacy Work section.

Images and Media

The article does include images which enhance the reader's understanding of the topic as a whole. The article could be improved with the addition of a photo of Lorena Alarcon-Casas Wright, but I imagine that the author is waiting to procure a photo due to copyright standards. Both images are well-captioned, but I would recommend adding the date that the photo was taken to each caption.

The first image (of Universidad Veracruzana) does seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright laws, since it was uploaded under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. I think that the second image included (of the UW Diabetes Institute) may violate copyright law. The second image doesn't have a copyright license associated with it, and when I click "view license", I get a message from Wikipedia that says "The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status". The message notes that Wikipedia may delete the image due to its copyright uncertainty.

All images are laid out in a visually appealing way, and they fit well with the content of each section.

New Article Questions

The article definitely meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, because it uses includes many (more than 2-3) reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I appreciated the variety of sources included in the References section. The list of sources seems pretty exhaustive, and there were no obvious sources that were not included in the article. All major publications mentioning Wright were included.

The article itself follows the formatting of most other major scientist biography articles, except for the placement of the Personal Life section, as noted above. All headings and subheadings are formatted with the correct font, size, bolding, etc. The article does contain links to many other articles; however, I would suggest going through the article one more time and making sure that no additional links can be added. In particular, the entire "LatinX Diabetes Clinic" subsection doesn't have any links. There are also some obvious links missing. For example, the article contains the word "diabetes" 55 times, but never actually links to the general "Diabetes" Wikipedia page (although it does include specific links for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes).

Overall Impressions

This article was very informative and I strongly appreciated the diverse range of sources used by the author. In order to improve the article, I would focus on adding more links to other Wikipedia Pages, creating working links in the infobox, and monitoring/fixing image copyright issues. I think that this article will provide a fantastic (and much needed) contribution to Wikipedia! Excellent work!