Talk:Alice Recoque

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 July 2019 by reviewer Tagishsimon (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women scientists Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shalini's Peer Review

The name of the lady should be bolded so it's "Alice Recoque". In the lead, it says that Recoque was a part of the Société Informatique de France, but in the next section, it does not really state how she became a member. Maybe there was no information about how exactly she joined, but there's too much emphasis on the society in the lead. There is sufficient information about her career in the lead. The only comment I have about structure is that maybe you should have split the "Life and Career" section into their own separate sections. One about her life and another about her career. It feels jumbled up with all the information in one section. Otherwise, I think the information you wrote is good with just a few grammatical errors. In the second paragraph in the "Life and Career" section, French should be capitalized. The section's length is fine since it contains vital information about Recoque. The article does not draw any conclusions and just states information from the sources. The writing comes from a neutral standpoint and does not try to convey the reader towards a certain viewpoint. Each paragraph has to have a citation, and you did write yourself a note for a paragraph that needed a citation. You did a good job finding several reliable sources. A lot came from published books. I was impressed with the number of sources you found and your article was easy to understand. ShaliniMoua (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Shalini Moua[reply]

Salena's Peer Review

Your lead section is great and well established. It allows me to have some knowledge on what I will be reading about. You have covered it in more details in your later section.

You have a good amount of reliable and credible resources for your information. Your sources were mainly documents and books about Alice Recoque, which establishes notability. No facts were based on one source. They were all evenly distributed.

The overall tone of your article is indeed neutral, there aren't any information where it was your own biased opinion.

Your sections are clear and in chronological order. Each section is the size based on its importance, especially the career section.

There are a lot of positive information about Alice. Does she have any failures or downfalls in her lifetime that you could add in? If not, your article is still good.

Don't forget to cite one of her achievements that you added.

Salenamle (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]