User:WithGusto/Marguerite Williams/Collector786 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

WithGusto


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WithGusto/Marguerite_Williams?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Marguerite Williams

Lead section:
The lead of the article does not appear to have been changed. It's brief and concise but easy to understand. The lead addresses that she was African American, studied in the US, and attained a degree in geology. These topics are covered in the draft but not necessarily paragraph by paragraph. It might be useful to add in the lead that she was also a teacher and the college that she earned her doctorate from.

Content:
One portion of the added content gives background to what it was like to be a woman in science. I think this is a good touch since it shows readers that world that Williams was working within. Where it mentions that Williams faced unique obstacles as a black woman in science, it would be useful to expand on that even more and get more detailed if possible.

The content also mentions Williams' school unification advocacy. I thought this was useful, but I was a bit unclear on what unifying different grades in kindergarten meant. It might be good to explain which grades she wanted to unify and how this would work.

Content was also added about her award which was useful and looks good.

There was a sentence that mentioned the picking of Roger Arliner Young as an assistant professor instead of Williams. This sentence might need to be reworked a bit to add what her qualifications were that differed from Young. It looks like the claim that Williams was more qualified came from Black Women Scientists in the United States by Wini Warren, which is available at PSU library. It might be worth looking into why and providing that information from the book so that it doesn't appear conjectural.

I like that the draft expands on her teaching night class.

Overall the content appears to be relevant and up to date as long as further background can be given regarding the obstacles and the difference in qualification. The article deals with an equity gap.

The information provided ties in to my own article on Sarah Goode since she was also a black woman in STEM and faced similar challenges.

Tone and Balance:
Overall the content appears pretty balanced and has a neutral tone. It does not appear to persuade but rather to accurately paint a picture of Williams' life. I would however make adjustments as mentioned above about the obstacles and qualification difference as that could come off as conjectural without enough documentation.

Sources and References:
The sources given seem fairly accurate. With this kind of work with lesser known individuals, finding peer reviewed secondary sources on these women is pretty difficult. It seems like the websites used link to reliable sources, though. It's possible there are more sources out there, but those would probably tend to be primary sources. The links all worked well, and the websites were well-sourced as far as I can tell. Reading through the websites, the information listed reflects what was pulled for the Wikipedia article. The sources are current and diverse.

Organization:
The content seems well-written without going into too much extraneous information. I think that it would be easier to understand, though, if the section organization was adjusted a bit. It would be helpful I think to separate her early life from her education, making that two separate sections. It might also work better to take the section about her elementary school teaching out of the education system and move it to the career section. The editor could also create a new section for Williams' personal life and move the mention of her marriage to Otis there, since it's not relevant to her education. The portion about her reward might work better in a new section that could be titled "Legacy."

I noticed two typos in the sandbox article. They are both with the name Williams. Here are the two that need changed to Williams:

--- While at the University of the District of Columbia, Williams’ advocated

--- Once Willaims’ was promoted

Images and Media:
There is only one image in the original article and no new images in the sandbox article. The image in the article is of Howard University which is useful to have. The image is not captioned in the article but has information about it in the link. It is a Wiki Commons image and is in the public domain so does not violate copyright.

Overall Impressions:
The added content provides useful background and expands on Williams' legacy. The biggest improvement needed is separation of information into more organized sections.

PEER REVIEW RESPONSE

Thank you for your feedback and the wonderful suggestions. I will add to the lead that she was a teacher and the college from which she earned her doctorate. Expanding on the obstacles Williams faced as a black woman in science and her advocacy work are great ideas, and I will be checking my sources or looking for new sources to add more details. I agree that the sections need to be organized better. I am still writing out the information I have about Williams and then determining what sections I need to create. I did not think about creating a legacy section so that’s a great idea.