User:YapMel/Dr. Leticia E. Afuang/Jennagyee Peer Review

Hi! Great job overall! :)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the wikipedia article created by YapMel on Dr. Leticia Afuang.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * The link to the draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YapMel/Dr._Leticia_E._Afuang?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * I believe this would be the same link as is listed above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YapMel/Dr._Leticia_E._Afuang?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Lead:

 * The lead provides a quality summary of the rest of the article while still being relatively concise. It seemed to summarize each of her big passions and areas of work without going in depth on any of them, as that will occur later in the article.

Content:

 * The content added was all very relevant to the topic and lacked additional information that was not related to Dr. Afuang or her work/life. The content added seemed up to date and seemed to be the most recent information available. It did not have any content that did not belong.
 * It might be helpful to include some information on when she was born or her age, as that might help increase general knowledge about her, as I myself was surprised when I reached the retirement section.
 * My only other suggestion is that it might be good to add more about her education if you are able to find more on what she specifically focused on during her time, as you vaguely mention the sorts of groups she worked on but nothing specific about what she did with invertebrates or other areas of research.
 * This article definitely addresses Wikipedia's equity gap and represents topics (and individuals) that are historically underrepresented. Great job on choosing an uncommon leader, she seems really amazing, impactful, and super interesting! She really is an inspiring person!

Tone and Balance:

 * The content added seemed neutral and did not include intense biases or viewpoints that were not supported from other sources. The content did not seem to attempt to persuade or convince the reader of anything.

Sources and References:

 * I felt that all content was backed up with reliable sources and that all were cited clearly within the references section. While some of the sources were not the most recent, I felt they were all reasonably recent, especially when considering that there is probably not as many articles written about these people at the rapid scale that would be present for other individuals that have more fame.

Organization:

 * The content was well written and was definitely concise, clear, and easy to read. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors, but I have one very small comment: most everywhere you used an Oxford Comma but in the following sentence you did not (pointed out using bold and italics for the and following the missing comma): "While known as the 'Snake Lady,' her research as a herpetologist also focuses on other reptiles, amphibians and a wide array of herpetofauna across the Philippine islands." I wanted to mention this because although the Oxford Comma is considered optional, I figured it is best to maintain consistency and that it was presumably just forgotten (as I'm sure I have also accidentally done within my own article). Other than that it all looks really strong to me!
 * I felt that the different sections were used well to divide both different types of work but also different stages of Dr. Afuang's life, allowing me to feel like I was following her life and her life's story throughout this wikipedia page. I felt that by ending with the "Retirement" section it allowed you to summarize and bring together all the different information you've talked about and really emphasize the bigger impacts and importance of Dr. Afuang, similar to how one might with a conclusion. I though this really strengthened your page.

Images and Media:

 * I would highly recommend the addition of photos to your page. I know this is something that has been addressed before in general, but I really do feel as if the pictures add a lot to avoid things just looking like large blocks of test. I would personally suggest including a picture within the information box that you used to introduce her at the top of your page. I think (especially as there is a tendency of the public to not read the whole article) that by including the picture in that box you direct the attention to the quick facts you want them to know even if they don't continue reading.
 * I found this website (within wikipedia) to be the most useful for uploading images to wikipedia, as it is easy to use and didn't cause problems when I didn't know all of the information needed for the other upload station within wikipedia. Once you upload a file to this it will take a bit (around 5 minutes?) but after this time it will show up as a recent upload when you go to add a picture, which makes it really easy!
 * Here is the link to upload a file: Special:Upload
 * It might also be fun to include some pictures of snakes or even her with the snakes (as she is the "Snake Lady") or doing fieldwork, as those would give a good sense of her work and be visually appealing.

New Article Criteria:

 * The article does seem to meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements and uses many sources to represent the information presented. While the list of sources are not "exhaustive," I think there are enough to indicate the extent of research that was done and that this article represents a variety of sources and viewpoints of Dr. Afuang. I think that sources were chosen well.
 * The article follows similar patterns to other articles and follows an organization that makes sense for most wikipedia pages as well as this one in particular. This article links well to other articles with many hyperlinks throughout the entire article. This was well done for some of the more confusing or lesser known terms to really aid reading of the article. My only suggestion would be that you could potentially add a few hyperlinks to links outside of wikipedia for some of the foundations and organizations that lack their own wikipedia pages.

Overall impressions
Overall, I thought that the content was really well done and very thorough, improving the quality of the article and allowing me to learn a lot within just one article without it being too long of an article either. The ability to be thorough while also concise was helpful for this article and I thought the author did a really good job with their writing of this article. Great job and hopefully my comments were helpful! I think you did a really good job overall, and let me know if you have any questions!