User talk:Pompquine/Patricia Billings

Hi, I've reviewed your work on the Patricia Billings article.

Here is what I've concluded: Lead evaluation- The Lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence. However, the Lead does not include description of article's major sections. Additionally, the Lead includes information which is not present in the article, stating: "Billings has an entry in the Historical Encyclopedia of American Women Entrepreneurs, 1776 to the Present." This is not found in the article outside of lead. This information could possibly be included in the article in an Honors and Awards section, if you wished to incorporate it into the article outside of the lead section. Overall, the Lead is not overly detailed. The Lead is overall concise, but could probably be expanded upon to be stronger. I believe it would be stronger if it was briefly explained what Geobond is in the lead.

Content evaluation- The content added is relevant to the topic. The content added is overall up-to-date. All of the content seems to belong. There could be more content added in the form of Honors and Awards, etc. However, the content of the article is overall fitting of the topic. The article deals with the underrepresented topic of women inventors, and this deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and balance evaluation- Though there seems to be debate about the neutrality of the article, I think overall the content added was neutral. From the talk page, it seems some people are upset about the Forbes quote which spoke unbecomingly about Geobond, however all charged statements were quoted directly from sources. There were sources listed and quoted which also spoke favorably about Geobond. I did not come across any claims which appear biased in the article, nor any viewpoints which seem over or underrepresented. I did not find that the unbecoming quotes attempted to persuade me as the reader, but rather that they were there to give a more well rounded view of the reception of Geobond by the media.

Sources and references evaluation- All content seems to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. The sources used are thorough. Many of the sources used however, are not current. This is to be somewhat expected, as this invention happened over 20 years ago. However, I think the article would be improved if you could draw from more recent sources as well (you already have a few more recent sources, but expanding upon that list would be great for the article). The links I tried to use for sources worked.

Organization evaluation- Overall, content is concise, clear and easy to read. The only sentence that I would recommend maybe revising is: "However, in 2001, Forbes described the product claims as hype, with no advantages over existing materials, pointed out that the company was moribund, with a skeleton staff, and probably unable to fill orders 'if any', but pointing out that it might have minor uses like 'telephone poles in wildfire districts.'" It seems to be a little wordy, and I had to read it various times to understand the content of the sentence. Other than this sentence though, everything else was easy to read. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the content was well-organized as well. I would recommend maybe combining the Early Life and Education with the Personal Life section, or possibly expanding upon the Personal Life section. It seems awkward to have a section with just once sentence, especially when it could easily be combined with another section which has similar content.

Overall evaluation- You have definitely improved the overall quality of the article. Your work is clear, concise, neutral, and well-sourced. I would maybe work a little more on the structuring regarding what I said about the sections, as well as the other little things that I pointed out in my review. However, your article looks to be in good shape, it's definitely coming along better than my own! (:

Anonymous user22144 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Anonymous user22144