User talk:Korianh/Suzanne Eaton

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? (provide username) Korianh Link to draft you're reviewing: Suzanne Eaton Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it introduces Suzanne Eaton, but sentence could be stronger Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The contents of the article are listen Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no; Lead should be updated to be more of a summary of what is to come Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Only one sentence Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, each section of content is relevant but can be improved by adding more detail and references Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it cites information from 2019. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More information of about her early life and education/ career would be beneficial Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes; it addresses Women Scientists Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, very neutral Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? potentially biased on the telling of her death and the investigation Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Her sister is quoted in the personal life section; more viewpoints and more statements of Eaton's will strengthen the article Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? good sources so far Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? More references should be included that do not have to do with her disappearance and death. Are the sources current? Most sources are from 2019 Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? An abundance of references related to her disappearance and less about her career and education/ research Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links I randomly selected worked Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well-written, just needs to be built upon Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors but content gaps in each section-- each section can be improved Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections are well-organized; can potential be re-ordered for more clarity Organization evaluation 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 images well-captioned? No images Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images Images and media evaluation 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? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? 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? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has a lot of potential to be improved in each section; the references should also be checked and added to What are the strengths of the content added? Each important section is addressed- (i.e. Early life and education, career and research, awards and honors, personal life, disappearance and death, memorial fund, references) How can the content added be improved? Each section can be added to and improved with more detailed information and references. Gdegidi (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kjernig's Peer Review
Hi! I just looked over your sandbox and saw your to-do list, and all of those suggestions would certainly strengthen the quality and completeness of the article. I think we identified similar weaknesses in the original page, so if you work on those, I bet the page would certainly improve. Keep up the good work! Kjernig (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)