User:Sscorpio18/Muslim women in science and technology/Turtlesinthesand Peer Review

General info
(Sscorpio18)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sscorpio18/Muslim_women_in_science_and_technology?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Muslim women in science and technology:

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 has not been updated, however, the additions to the article still make sense with the current lead.

Content

 * The additions are relevent to the topic
 * The content uses up-to-date sources although the parts added is about historical women in science and technology.
 * The additions made are very helpful in improving the overall article.
 * The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as Muslim women in science and technology is an underexplored topic.

Tone and Balance

 * The added content is all neutral, there are no claims that appear to be biased.
 * There viewpoints are balanced, neither overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * The tone of the additions is neutral and well-written.

Sources and References

 * All new content is backed up by sources
 * The sources used appear to be reliable and include books, journals, and peer-reviewed articles.
 * The sources are thorough, only two of the sources are older, one being published in 2000, and the other in 1960, however, for the additions older sources are okay as it is about historic women.
 * The links do work, however, 2 of the references have been flagged with wrong referencing for a journal.

Organization

 * Content is well written and easy to read.
 * There are no spelling errors or grammatical errors.
 * The content is very well organized and the sections flow nicely.

Overall impressions

 * Overall, the additions improve the quality of the article, since two new women were added, it appears to be more well written and complete. The additions are very well written, and relevant to the current article, all points added are neutral and flow well together, I cannot find any improvements that need to be made to improve the additions.